What Happens When Elizabeth Warren Sells Out to Powerful Interests?

[Vegas Roller]

Last September, I wrote about Elizabeth Warren’s smart platform, which has harnessed the most politically attractive elements of the populist agenda while avoiding the most politically vulnerable parts. The concerns I have about Warren as a policymaker are not the issues she talks about, but the issues she doesn’t. Here are two issues where I believe Warren has done the wrong thing. There is a common theme here: They challenge and complicate her populist appeal.

The medical device tax. When Democrats wrote the Affordable Care Act, they paid for it in part by cutting back payments to medical providers. The logic was that, since the government was going to create tens of millions of new paying customers, the industry that would profit from serving those customers could contribute some of its windfall to financing their care and still come out even. Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and insurers all accepted this bargain, but the one sector that refused was the medical device industry. So rather than let the medical device industry get away with being the one sector that enjoyed the profit from a coverage expansion without bearing any of the cost, lawmakers imposed a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices.

The industry has relentlessly lobbied to repeal the tax. Massachusetts contains a major hub of medical device manufacturing, and Warren has relentlessly championed her home-state interest. She has co-sponsored legislation to repeal the medical device tax, written an op-ed advocating the tax repeal for the industry’s own newsletter, and proposed a bill that would penalize manufacturers of pharmaceuticals (but, crucially, not the medical device industry) for misappropriating funds intended for scientific research.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-sells-out-campaign-charter-schools-medical-device-tax.html

[NYMinute]

1. K&R

If they want to talk about the banking bills, let's talk about the medical device industry as well.

[stonecutter357]

2. K&R

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Senators who run for president will be up against the problem

of being criticized for supporting legislation favoring their constituents when it turns out that that legislation isn’t popular on the national level or doesn’t square with the candidates’ overall ideology. Klobuchar also opposed the medical device tax because Minnesota, like Massachusetts, is the corporate home of a number of medical device manufacturers. Other candidates who are or were senators are in the same situation- Biden and Delaware’s financial services industry is just one example. Senators are expected to bring home the bacon for their states but then they have to explain and justify it when they run for president.

[mr_lebowski]

7. +1 Exactly this ... (nt)

[treestar]

36. They can say they will do the same to look out for the entire

country as POTUS as they did for their state when a Senator.

They were doing what they were supposed to do. Don't see a way around that. It's the system.

[bluewater]

4. It's the time for all candidates to own their entire records.

Talk about all the issues, discuss them in the debates. It's the time for that.

Voters will make their own decisions which issues are most important and which candidate, on balance, best represents the voters' interests.

[UniteFightBack]

22. This election is about beating rump. All this voters interests nonsense. nt

[PatrickforO]

5. All the Senators running have done this. Governors, too.

As long as their efforts aren't egregiously damaging to the national interest, I'm inclined to give all of them a pass.

I expect my Senators to uphold the interests of the people in my state. I expect my president to uphold the interests of all the American people.

That's just how it is.

I think the words 'sell out' are a bit over the top because of the way our system is structured. If elected to the US Congress, you are expected to add amendments (earmarks) to bills to bring money into your state. That is how the system works - not good or bad, just how it works.

[George II]

6. I believe "sell out" has been a term used about Cory Booker a number of times over the months....

...because he happens to be from New Jersey where several pharmaceutical research and manufacturing facilities are located.

His fault? He accepts contributions from office, clerical, maintenance, and production employees that work in those facilities. So he's "selling out" to "Big Pharma"!!!

[PatrickforO]

12. Yeah, Booker will also have to face allegations that he's in the pocket of Wall Street, too.

But I'm going to stick by my guns and say the term 'sell out' is over the top. You've seen my explanation as to why I think that, and it applies to all of them.

[Hoyt]

11. Her caving to those who profit from healthcare, harsh/unfounded criticism of Obama

trade agreements, and her more recent nationalistic “Economic Patriotism,” are concerning to me.

Yes, they all have some questionable positions, but we ought to discuss them.

[PatrickforO]

13. Yes, Warren, who did used to be a Republican, and who

criticized Obama's handling of the TPP harshly, does need to answer for those things.

As an economist, I will disclose that I supported her criticisms of the ISDS provisions of the TPP, but would oppose repealing the tax for medical device manufacturers.

The reason I'm pretty close to Warren in positions is that - I am an economist and she has a very good grasp of fiscal and monetary policy, both of which a president needs, and she is talking about things that I think America really needs.

Could I support the other candidates? Most, with the exception of Williamson who is an anti-vaxxer, and a couple of the others who will probably be forced to drop out before too long due to lack of support. But I could definitely get behind Warren, Harris, Castro, Booker, or Biden.

[Hoyt]

15. Yeah, but she darn sure didn't understand the ISDS, something that has been

in over 2500 trade agreements since 1959. It’s also in the recent European trade agreement with Vietnam, that is direct result of trump being elected, with help of Sanders and Warren misguided criticism.

So, as an economist, do you support “Economic Patriotism,” that smacks of America Firstism, Nationalism, etc., which again is quite trumpian?

[PatrickforO]

21. Well trade is a very complicated subject and your second sentence seems to imply that because

I may disagree with you about trade issues, I'm somehow flawed, or worse, in the Trump camp. I actually do resent that, not because it isn't true, which it isn't - I'm most definitely NOT in the Trump camp, but because I have seen many of your posts on here and they are much more thoughtful than this one is. So...I'm answering you now because I felt you deserve a thoughtful answer.

Trade is complicated. There are three major players - workers, businesses and government. And, yes, there are pros and cons to free trade as an economic concept. If you think it through, you'll also hit on some moral conundrums that go with it as well, particularly if you believe, like most billionaires and CEOs seem to, that we live in a zero sum world and that for me to win, you must lose.

I won't belabor those recognized pros and cons out of respect for you, because your post to me suggests you are aware of them.

Instead, lets merely explore the types of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and see why having these provisions in a trade agreement can be good or bad. Or both.

Clearly, the main 'pro' around having ISDS provisions in place is that they protect companies that invest in operations in a foreign country from losing that investment to nationalization or other corruption. That is a good thing, at least on its face.

But what happens when we take the concept too far, as the TPP did? In the TPP, a company based in say, Seattle, could sue the city, the state of Washington and the federal government for loss of profits due to the imposition of regulations. Now, you know as well as I that there are some of these suits in court now. One example that comes to mind is the oil companies suing the US government for loss of profits over the Keystone Pipeline.

So, to be truly effective, an agreement must have benefits for all the stakeholders, and protections for all the stakeholders. Unfortunately, by the nature of these ISDS agreements, protections for the environment as a stakeholder simply is not included.

Now, stakeholders in any trade agreement are a country's people, workers in affected industries, consumers of product, shareholders and the environment. Right now, in this business climate, the pendulum has simply swung too far toward the primacy of the shareholder over all else, and it is materially hurting workers, consumers and the planet we live on.

Eliminate that doctrine by expanding fiduciary responsibility of C-Suite officers to recognize the interests of these four stakeholders as coequal would go a long way toward rectifying many of the seemingly intractable problems that beset us.

The proverbial bottom line here is that yes, we do need trade agreements, and yes, these agreements need ISDS provisions because there is corruption all over the earth, and a business expanding into an area in good faith needs those protections, PROVIDED that expanding business also must, by virtue of the way those ISDS provisions are (should be) written, protect the interests of the other stakeholders too.

In my opinion, the ISDS provisions in the TPP did not do this, thus I opposed the TPP based on that. Be mindful of the secrecy that surrounded the entire thing - members of Congress being allowed to go into a room alone, not take notes and simply read the thing was very strange to me. The 'fast tracking' of Senate approval was problematic. And the lack of any kind of open debate was problematic.

So you see, you cannot really just assume, as you did, that because I disagree with X must mean I agree with Y. That is a fallacy in logic and you are better than that. It is better to say, in a mathematical sense that I agree with X(business) + X(community governance) + X(workers) + X(consumers) + X(environment), but not merely X(business). And, since the TPP was written primarily by corporate attorneys deliberately trying to be obtuse - I know because I read it on wikileaks - to my mind other stakeholders were NOT considered as they should have been.

But again, please do not put words in my mouth or try in the heat of argument to impose some position that has nothing to do with my actual thinking on the matter.

********************
The primacy of the shareholder doctrine, and our desperate need to expand fiduciary responsibility of CEOs in publicly held corporations is why I'm supporting Warren. This is the root cause of most of our problems. It really is, and in August 2018, she introduced legislation called the 'Accountable Capitalism Act.' She 'gets' it. I like Warren a lot.

And, you know, none of the candidates are perfect, including Warren. But Trump is a monster. Now, for a time, our primary race was pretty good in terms of not ripping each others' guts out. Now, just in the space of a few days, that has changed. Not good. The people on here have positions along a continuum between progressive left (social democrat) and centrist (like Eisenhower Republicans - if you read Ike's brilliant 1963 essay titled, "Why I'm a Republican," you will see what I mean).

I loved Obama and still do, but he was a centrist. I supported Bernie in 2016 but voted for Clinton when Bernie lost the primaries. That was a bitter battle on here, too. Now, we have a whole bunch of younger, fresher candidates that look a whole lot more like the American people, and they are elevating the dialog. People are talking about healthcare and the environment now, and our job is to advance arguments so people actually understand that medicare for all won't make private insurance illegal. Or my favorite - it will 'rip away the employer coverage you love,' when the truth is actually that what you will have will be better than what you did have. But that's a different debate.

Hopefully this clarifies my positions on the ISDS provisions in TPP and on ISDS provisions in general.

[Hoyt]

23. Don't necessarily agree with all that, but it's fair response. How about "Economic Patriotism?"

I’m not at my keyboard— where I can type faster than I speak — but agree completely about corporations.

I went to a conservative school in late 60s, but even our professors talked about “satisfying profits” (considering society, workers, company, customers). I don’t know what moved us to maximizing short-term profits. But that’s where we are now.

Somehow we need to get back to that like Scandinavian counties. Fact is, we’ll never have all the things we want — healthcare, stable jobs, higher wages, education, response to climate change, bolstered Social Security, and so much more — without a partnership with corporations and a global market that is growing in wealth too.

Enjoyed the discourse.

[PatrickforO]

24. Your last paragraph is brilliant, and in fact is my answer to the question around

economic patriotism. The only thing I think will save us is to begin thinking and planning as a species. We're always going to have some kind of market economy, but you are right that we must have more effective (less one-sided) partnerships with corporations.

I will look up the term 'satisfying profits.' It's just plain greed that took us to where we are now. Somehow, we must mature enough to realize that the two greatest illusions that beset us are greed and lust for power.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

[LanternWaste]

50. I'd buy into the branding and label it 'caving' too... if I had nothing substantial to add.

Buzz words are cool and trendy (and fit on t-shirts, so that's a win as well), but without objective data or evidence leading directly to the conclusion, the allegations of become little more than fortune cookies.

[beachbum bob]

8. we as democrats need to be sure we do not vilify success having said that, all elected officials

are suppose to in this order:

- serve their constituents in their districts or state
- serve the people of our country
- all while upholding the tenants of our constitution


that means they also serve business interest that reflects on jobs for their district and states



we can not take the position that helping business is always BAD, that rich successful people are always BAD

[PatrickforO]

14. I agree. n/t

[LibFarmer]

9. Every current and former senator can be "attacked" this way

The point to remember is that senators serve their state and have to take unpopular positions that favor their state because it is their job and duty.

So this attack as well as attacks on Biden on positions he took to favor the citizens of Delaware are unnecessary and toxic to the core.

[Hekate]

10. "Sells out to powerful interests" is an extremely loaded & prejudicial phrase...

Unfortunately, I expect to see it used on each of our candidates as they near frontrunner status, just as it has been used on Hillary Clinton and others of our best Democrats.

I just want to point out that it is a trolling term. It is a ratfcking term.

As a phrase it should have no place here. Emotions may run high, but we also have brains, and I hope we will use said brains to think critically about what we are passing along.

No, I have not read the article. The title said it all.

[Hortensis]

17. This. Substitute "complex issue"

as in 98% of voters won’t educate themselves about it, and so it’s a perfect vehicle for disinformation.

[Hekate]

19. Someone is already using the term "caving" in this thread. Used to be a fave troll term for Obama...

...around here. When Warren really pulls ahead, someone will start saying she's "spelunking," as a faux intellectual way of saying she caves and is teh evil.

[Hortensis]

20. All our best candidates are strong liberals,

and the democratic electorate is strongly liberal, so it’s easy to pick out antagonists and/or those who don’t understand liberalism by their messages claiming otherwise.

[Buzz cook]

16. The article lies by implication and

lies by false comparison.

Warren co-authored a bill meant to punish big pharma for misuse of government funds. The monies gained are intended to go to medical research.
The article claims she is selling out because medical device makers aren't included in this. But there are many groups that misuse government funds. Should we condemn Warren for not including all those groups as well?

In the second part of the article the authors claim charter schools are an unalloyed success. Are they? Not nationally they're not. Charter schools when they are not an outright scam [link:https://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/08/22/john-oliver-philly-charter-schools-last-week-tonight/| on average do not out preform public schools. Where they do succeed it is often because they can cherry pick the students they accept.
Clearly there are true believers in charter schools but Warren is not one of them.

Finally the article repeats the canard that Warren is not comfortable talking on issues outside her field.

"For better and for worse, she is a moralist. This allows her to communicate sometimes complex issues in simple and clear terms, and thus to bring public pressure to bear on issues that are usually confined to smoke-filled rooms. But it also leaves her lacking in a language to explain the issues where she doesn’t have a clear people-versus-the-powerful frame."

If the last year has shown anything it is that Warren is able to speak on a variety of subject at depth.

[Buzz cook]

18. What happens when people realize that Biden has sold them out many times?

https://www.propublica.org/article/bidens-cozy-relations-with-bank-industry-825#

Biden has been particularly cozy with MBNA, a financial services company from Delaware, and now a subsidiary of Bank of America.

Over the past 20 years, MBNA has been Biden's single largest contributor. And as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal note, Biden's son Hunter was hired out of law school by MBNA and later worked as a lobbyist for the company.

The Times also details just how helpful Biden has been to MBNA and the credit card industry. The senator was a key supporter of an industry-favorite bill -- the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" -- that actually made it harder for consumers to get protection under bankruptcy.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/10/18173132/joe-biden-hillary-clinton-2020

Biden is in no better a position. He spent his whole career in the Senate representing Delaware, a major center of the consumer credit side of the banking industry. He was so close to the local banking giant that he was jokingly referred to as “the senator from MBNA” (which has since been bought by Bank of America).

This made him, among other things, a champion of mostly GOP-supported legislation in 2005 whose aim was to make it more difficult for hard-pressed families to discharge their credit card debt in bankruptcy.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/middle-class-joe-cozied-up-to-credit-card-companies-and-made-filing-for-bankruptcy-harder

In February 1996, MBNA executive John Cochran bought Biden’s home outside Wilmington for the full $1.2 million asking price, while other similarly appraised houses at the time sold for around $100,000 to $200,000 less than asking price. MBNA then paid Cochran $330,115 that year for moving expenses and noted that he lost $210,000 due to the sale of his Maryland home.

Funny that a biden supporter would try to attack Warren from the left.

[Demsrule86]

31. And Warren fought for a medical device tax more recently...benefitting

Companies in her state.

[Buzz cook]

40. You can't even get your own talking point right

Here's what you were supposed to say, 'Warren fought to "END" a tax on medical devices".

If you're going to crib off of other people's arguments you should at least quote them accurately.

But at least you get a participation ribbon, atta boy or girl.

[Demsrule86]

41. she wanted to get rid of the tax to benefit this industry...because this was in her state...

The point is the same no matter if you twist my words or my meaning. I have no issue with this...she served her constituents...but let's not attack other canididates who do the same...rather hyporcritical of some to do this...wouldn't you agree?

[Buzz cook]

42. Go to the back of the class

I didn't twist your words, or rather the words of the person you got your argument from, they came pre-twisted.

I corrected your sentence. Now thank me and go home.

[Demsrule86]

44. Oh please...this isn't a class...all Senators have to represent their consituents...so Warren and

others should be careful about bashing others...people who live in glass houses...I am a aware we have a medical device tax...I am aware that the industry doesn't like this and that Warren and Markey introduced a bill to get rid of it...in 18.


"Warren said she was glad to work with Markey "to repeal the medical device tax with an appropriate offset so Massachusetts device companies can continue to innovate and save lives."

Robert K. Coughlin, president and CEO of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, urged support for the proposed medical device tax repeal, saying it will lead to greater innovation."

As for the rest of your post...well I don't respond to nasty comments and rudeness. Have a nice day.

https://www.masslive.com/politics/2018/01/us_sen_ed_markey_pushes_bill_t_3.html

[Blue_true]

25. BS

She was doing her job as a US Senator for her state. The industries affected contribute a massive amount to the state's economy.

[Demsrule86]

30. And the credit card industry contributes to Delaware.

[Blue_true]

37. Exactly. And Biden was doing his job to defend them.

All industries can implement consumer friendly reforms, some do, most don't. But it is not the job of a US Senator to help gut businesses that employ hundreds of thousands in their state, they should prod those businesses to change their practices, and I believe both Warren and Biden are the types that would have done that.

[Demsrule86]

39. I have not issue with that.

[marylandblue]

43. I don't think Biden has ever prodded the financial industry to improve their practices.

I may be wrong about that, but in any case, right now would be a really good time to do it, since he isn't a Senator anymore and it likely would be a popular move.

Warren is proposing wholesale changes in how government, corporations and financial institutions operate, which presumably would include the medical device industry.

So even if we set aside what they had to do as Senators, Warren is the one prepared to repudiate all of it. And I personally think this will actually play well in swing states, because I don't know anybody in any state who loves their bank.

[Demsrule86]

45. He is not holding office at the moment...and I don't think that is an issue for this primary...

[marylandblue]

47. It's an issue for some people, maybe more than you think,

and in places you don't expect.

[Demsrule86]

48. I don't agree...people want healthcare, jobs, infrastructure....that sort of thing addressed...if it

was an issue than Warren would be 30 poins ahead with her history and she is not.

[Blue_true]

53. I think that Warren is going to surge ahead soon.

I really have that feeling deep in my gut. The worst thing that can happen to both Joe and Bernie is to have her on the same debate stage with both of them, that is going to happen soon, maybe by the third debate, I am unsure about the next one. She may get to go toe to toe with either Joe or Bernie, and whichever of them is that unlucky likely would seen the vertex of their campaign coming into the debate. I don't think either can match her head to head.

I know that you have constantly dismissed her, I apologize if dismiss is too strong a word to describe your position. But I regularly talk to people who have seen her work a campaign crowd, she is not remotely a lightweight by any measure. She more than doubled her campaign contributions last quarter, surpassing Bernie, she does not do big money fundraisers, the fact that she finished less than $3 million less than Biden should scare the pants off of his supporters. Her per donor contribution was larger than that for Bernie, which means that she likely has peeled off Bernie's more well heeled individual donors, I believe many of the rest of Bernie's donors will soon go over to her, then there is no way Joe matches her money.

[Demsrule86]

54. I hope not becausec she is unlikely to win a general. I cant imagine the damage four

more years of Trump could do. Also the house was won by moderates, we could lose rhe house too...in short a disaster for us.

[WA-03 Democrat]

26. Wow

I really like her but how dare she try to help and serve the people who elected her.

She may not be pure enough.

Oh what the hell! She is abundantly good and qualified.

Our issue are the corrupt Rupukes, Russia, Trump, healthcare, income inequality, climate change and civil/voting right. I have no doubt she can work and make all the above better. Why? Because she cares and does the right thing. This is what makes us the Democratic Party.

I love Joe but I will support whoever is the nominee.

GOTV

[Demsrule86]

28. But it is wrong when Biden protects a big employer in his state?

Purity for thee but not me apparently.

[ucrdem]

34. This.

[ucrdem]

27. It looks like progressive purity is in the eye of the beholder.

Debate prediction: Warren will be given a special spotlight and theme music as she springs her t-shirt ready bankruptcy gotcha on Biden; Biden will give no quarter, correct a few little mistakes, and defend himself eloquently but briskly, without insulting anyone; and the goons on MSNBC will spend the next week crowing about how she ended Joe's campaign.

Meanwhile Biden will remain a frontrunner in every poll except those commissioned by Iowa biofuels PACs, Warren will enjoy a weekend surge of over-reported fundraising, then stumble over some inconsistency and recede to her previous position in the lineup ahead of Harris but behind Biden.

Stay tuned!

[Demsrule86]

29. He should immediately point out the medical device tax.

Senators are expected to support business in their states.

[ucrdem]

32. He probably will.

But he'll do it in friendly way. When Harris went nuclear you could see him thinking WTF but then he turned to her and cut her to shreds politely. Pundits were so desperate to call him old weak and tired that they completely missed it, or pretended they did. But if he hadn't she wouldn't be a world of walk-backs right now.

[Demsrule86]

33. That is true. He is expecting it now.

[kcr]

35. Really? Powerful interests like... teacher's unions?

We're supposed to be against teacher's unions now? Since when? This article is dreck.

[Politicub]

38. Unlike others, Warren will not try to conceal her record. She will explain and take

ownership for her good and bad decisions.

Whenever someone posts an article intended to create doubt about Warren or Buttigieg, it backfires. They merely point out how other candidates twist themselves into pretzels so that they never, under any circumstance, admit they didn’t make a good decision.

[Demsrule86]

46. Neither Warren or Buttigieg will win a general... so let them take all the ownership they choose...I

still maintain taking ownership of a problem (racist police) as Buttigieg did in a primary but doing nothing to fix it in almost two terms previously is not owning up to anything. I don't follow Warren so I have no idea what she owns up to...I like her but I will only vote for her should she (doubt it will happen) win a primary in a general election.

[Politicub]

49. Please accept my deepest apologies in advance if

you must strain your arm to vote for Warren or someone who is not Biden in the general election.

I realize it may be hard for people to conceive that a woman or a gay man could possibly win a national election. And, mercy me, they’re unabashed progressives to boot. Talk about a toxic combo! Is America ready? /sarc

[Fiendish Thingy]

52. Don't care - she's for MFA

That’s a quantum leap from where we are now. Medical device coverage can be part of the fine tuning of the law.