Elizabeth Warren

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Progressives United and Democracy For America all called on Schwartz Tuesday to resign from her position as honorary co-chair of Third Way. Democratic primary opponent John Hanger echoed the demand. Mark Bergman, a spokesman for Schwartz, said she would not resign but said in an email to The Huffington Post that she thought the op-ed was “outrageous, and strongly disagrees with it.”

The Liberal Fix team was very excited to sit down with the Press Secretary for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and talk about the challenges that progressives face, the opportunities that exist, as well as their recent focus on expanding Social Security.

The PCCC has played a large part in moving the dialogue on Social Security away from decreasing benefits to expanding existing benefits.

Most recently and notably Senator Warren offered her full support for expanding Social Security and made a very public statement in support of the effort.

Add Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to the growing chorus of voices calling for the expansion of Social Security benefits.

Groups such as MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America’s Future, Patriot Majority and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee have been campaigning for expanded Social Security benefits since the re-introduction of Harkin’s legislation.

“Social Security is incredibly effective, it is incredibly popular, and the calls for strengthening it are growing louder every day,” Warren said.

But Harkin’s bill, which has also drawn the support of Begich, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has forced the issue into the political mainstream, and Warren’s backing turns the issue into a likely topic in the 2016 Democratic presidential race.

“This summer no one even talked about (expanding benefits), but now we’re really building momentum,” Kimberly Fountain, campaign director for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Raw Story.

If Elizabeth Warren is emerging as a kind of spokeswoman for the new economic populism that many Democratic activists want the party to embrace heading into 2014 and 2016, this speech that Warren is currently delivering on the floor of the Senate suggests the push to expand Social Security could become a key issue in the argument over the Democratic Party of the future.

In remarks Warren just began delivering, she strongly endorsed the push to boost Social Security benefits — in keeping with Senator Tom Harkin’s proposal to do the same — and condemned the “Chained CPI” that liberals fear Dems will embrace in strong terms.

By planting a flag on the need to expand Social Security, Warren may have just added this issue to the pantheon of preoccupations that are driving those who want to see the party embrace a more economically populist posture going forward. Liberal bloggers such as Atrios and liberal groups like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, have been pushing for a Social Security expansion, arguing that Democratic priorities should be centered on the idea that declining pensions and wages (and savings) are undermining retirement security, and that the party should above all stand against undermining the social insurance system.

Elizabeth Warren is a popular figure on the left wing of the Democratic Party due to her aggressive focus on inequality and financial reform. Last week, The New Republic’s Noam Schieber floated her as a potential candidate in the 2016 Democratic Party, where should could serve as a foil to the more Wall Street-friendly Hillary Clinton.

The PCCC has not said that it is trying to draft Warren into the race. Instead, the group appears to be trying to demonstrate the popularity of her anti-austerity, pro-financial reform message in the hopes that other Democratic politicians will begin to emulate it.

In a statement on O’Malley’s keynote speech, PCCC spokesperson Matt Wall alluded to who the real target of the organization’s “Elizabeth Warren wing” campaign might be: Not O’Malley, who is currently polling at 0% among New Hampshire Democrats, but presidential heir apparent Hillary Clinton.

“It’s fantastic that Governor O’Malley took the fight to those who would cut Social Security benefits. That’s a winning message for Democrats and a potentially defining issue in any Democratic primary,” said Wall. “Hopefully Hillary Clinton soon says that she opposes any cuts to Social Security benefits—and makes clear that Democrats are united around that position going into 2016.”

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement to Civil Beat, “Every week, we hear about corporations that cut the pensions they promised to workers. As a result, Social Security has never been more important. Senator Harkin’s bill, which Senator Brian Schatz was among the first to support, will expand Social Security benefits for our grandparents and veterans. And by requiring the wealthy to pay the same rate into Social Security as the rest of us, Harkin and Schatz would pay for the benefit increase and have trillions left over to keep Social Security strong for decades.ai??? Last week, the group pushed the idea at rallies in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Texas.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee will be running a unique online debate on Saturday featuring all five Democratic candidates in the 5th Congressional District.

The debate, which will be held at 11 a.m. on Saturday, Aug. 10, will be run through the website OpenDebateQuestions.com, which the PCCC is debuting for this event. The public will submit questions and then vote on which questions they like. Massachusetts voters will pick the top 50 questions, and moderators will choose from those questions to ask the candidates. The candidates will participate via video from remote locations. So far, people have submitted more than 300 questions.

A progressive group announced Tuesday morning theyai??i??ll be hosting a ai???first of itai??i??s kindai??? debate in Massachusettsai??i?? 5th congressional district, where five Democrats are vying to replace the seat now vacated by Sen. Ed Markey.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee says their ai???Open Debate,ai??? where all questions will be submitted and chosen by the public, could serve as a model in future races and someday (they hope) presidential races.

ai???Open Debates, where the public submits and votes on the questions, will hopefully be a game changer in our political process. What starts here in Massachusetts will hopefully become the norm for local, state, congressional, and even presidential debates in the future,ai??? said PCCC spokesman Matt Wall.

Five Democrats who are running to fill an open seat in the Fifth District of Massachusetts will participate in a novel interactive online debate format this Saturday, thanks to the efforts of a progressive group that’s been pushing to change the passive broadcast format of televised political debates for the past six years.

The five Democrats are running to fill Democratic Senator Ed Markey’s old seat in Massachusetts, an area that encompasses the suburbs to the north and west of Boston. They’ll be participating in a debate format that will include live questions from Massachusetts residents whose questions had been submitted online and voted up Reddit-style. Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor, co-founders of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and the organizers of the event, will moderate, and they’ll invite those whose questions received the most votes to participate.

Last month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) joined twelve of her colleagues “in sending a letter to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The letter calls for an investigation into recently disclosed NSA programs to determine whether they are conducted within the statutory authority granted by Congress and to ensure that American citizens’ civil liberties and privacy are protected.”

Now, she has upped the ante, joining a new letter of 26 Senators — 21 Democrats and 4 Republicans — in writing directly to the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in demanding answers about the NSA’s spy programs. Here are a few of the questions that the letter is asking:

How long has the NSA used PATRIOT Act authorities to engage in bulk collection of Americans’ records? Was this collection underway when the law was reauthorized in 2006?
Has the NSA used USA PATRIOT Act authorities to conduct bulk collection of any other types of records pertaining to Americans, beyond phone records?
Please provide specific examples of instances in which useful intelligence was gained by reviewing phone records that could not have been obtained without the bulk collection authority, if such examples exist.

The letter also calls out Clapper for “misleading the public” with statements saying that the NSA doesn’t hold data on US citizens.

We wouldn’t even know about the NSA’s spying without Edward Snowden’s heroism. Thatai??i??s why thousands of people are fighting back at SnowdenLegalFund.com. Click here to chip in a few dollars to defend Snowden.

Across the hall from Paul’s display, staffers from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a 1 million-member advocacy group founded by two former MoveOn.org organizers, was doing a brisk business handing out blue-and-white bumper stickers declaring, “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.”

Warren, the senator from Massachusetts who endeared herself to the left by pushing for student loan reform and greater Wall Street regulation, long ago surpassed Obama as a darling of the left, said Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

“This conference is about bottom up people power,” said Adam Green with Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Green’s committee raised $100,000 to convince Elizabeth Warren to run for the Senate.

“We wanted to show her how much grassroots support would be there and it worked,” Green said.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) today announced that she will vote against Michael Froman, President Obama’s nominee to be the U.S. Trade Representative. Warren cited her concerns with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a secret trade agreement that the administration has been negotiating that may threaten the worker and environmental rights. The administration has refused to disclose the text of the negotiations to the wider public.

“If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States,” said Warren in her speech. “I am voting against Mr. Froman’s nomination later today because I believe we need a new direction from the Trade Representative — A direction that prioritizes transparency and public debate,” she concluded.Ai??Read the full text of her speech below the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAgJaIwdXLI

FULL TEXT:

Thank you Mr. President.

I rise today to talk about trade agreements and the impact they have on our economy. Trade agreements affect access to foreign markets and our level of imports and exports.Ai?? They also affect a wide variety of public policy issues – everything from wages, jobs, the environment, and the Internet — to monetary policy, pharmaceuticals, and financial services.

Many people are deeply interested in tracking the trajectory of trade negotiations, but if they do not have reasonable access to see the terms of the agreements under negotiation, then they can’t have real input.Ai?? Without transparency, the benefits from an open marketplaces of ideas are reduced enormously.

I am deeply concerned about the transparency record of the US Trade Representative and with one ongoing trade agreement in particular — the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

For months, the Trade Representative who negotiates on our behalf has been unwilling to provide any public access to the composite bracketed text relating to the negotiations.Ai?? The composite bracketed text includes proposed language from …

The Obama administration is currently working with numerous countries to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) a massive new trade agreement. Labor, environmental, and human rights groups worry that this trade deal may undermine financial regulation, offshore American jobs, reduce environmental protections, and decrease access to medicine.

The best way to ensure this does not happen is to let Americans know what’s happening in the negotiations. Unfortunately, while over 600 corporate advisors have access to these negotiations, most Members of Congress, the public, journalists, and civil society do not.

Today, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) called on U.S. Trade Representative nominee Michael Froman to reveal these secret trade negotiations by revealing the bracket text of the agreement or at least provide information on the level of detail on negotiations made available to advisory committees. From the text of a press release from Warren’s office, detailing a letter to Froman:

United States Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) today, in a letter to United States Trade Representative (USTR) nominee Michael Froman, called on his support for increased transparency in trade negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Sen. Warren expressed concerns about the Administration’s record of transparency specifically during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

“If members of the public do not have reasonable access to the terms of the agreements under negotiation, then they are unable to offer real input into the process,” Senator Warren wrote in the letter. “Without transparency, the benefit from robust democratic participation – an open marketplace of ideas – is considerably reduced.”

Sen. Warren highlights the Administration’s unwillingness to provide to the public composite bracketed text relating to the negotiations. This text includes proposed language from the United States and other countries, and serves as the focal point for negotiations. She noted that the Bush Administration, while not embracing full transparency, at least released a scrubbed …

Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and David Vitter (R-LA) have introduced legislation that would lay the groundwork for breaking up the biggest banks — a cause Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been fighting for since she took office.

To understand why this legislation is so important even though Congress already passed into law a financial reform bill, recall that the biggest so-called “too big to fail” banks on Wall Street are now actually bigger than they were during the financial crisis where they were bailed out.

Neil Barofsky, a New York University academic who served as the watchdog for the Trouble Asset Relief Program (the bank bailout), appeared on CNN last fall and explained how the banks are bigger than ever and that they continue to believe they’ll be bailed out if they fail:

BAROFSKY: If you just look at the map, the fact is the banks are 20 to 25 percent bigger than they were before the crisis. And that we haven’t changed the incentives. The way the incentives are “too big to fail” because of the presumption of bailout is it drives these institutions into taking more and more bigger and bigger risks. Again, the presumptions are they’ll keep the profits, and the taxpayers will eat the losses.

Watch it:

Weai??i??re launching a campaign to pass the Brown-Vitter bill that would break up the Big Banks. Click here to join.

You should follow BoldProgressives on Twitter here.

Yesterday, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) aggressively questioned Treasury Secretary Jack Lew about efforts to break up so-called “too big to fail” banks. She noted that under the previous Treasury Secretary, the administration failed to support a Senate amendment to break up these banks.

She then probed Lew about if he would support such efforts.

LEW: I think we’re on a path now which is the right path, which is to implement Dodd-Frank and then to take stock when we’re done implementing Dodd-Frank. […]

WARREN: Ai??The question is though, Secretary Lew, this is about concentration. We all said back in 2009, 2009, the problem that caused the financial crash in part was concentration in the banking industry. And what do we see now? We see more concentration. […] How big do the biggest banks have to get before we consider breaking them up? They’re thirty percent larger now than they were five years ago. Do they have to double in size? Triple in size? Quadruple in size, before we talk about breaking up the biggest financial institutions? […]

LEW: There are many things going on and I’m not trying to avoid addressing the question of “too big to fail,” I’m trying to address quite clearly that that’s an unacceptable policy. But I think we have to take in account all the factors that together add up to systemic risk.

WARREN: Fair enough, Mr. Lew, Secretary Lew. But I really think the evidence suggests that concentration is one of those factors. And that when we see the largest financial institutions getting bigger and bigger, it tells us we are not clearly on the path to resolving “too big to fail.”

Watch it:

We’re launching a campaign to pass the bipartisan Brown-Vitter bill that would break up …

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) thinks its wrong that Big Banks get interest rates on their loans that are seven times lower than America’s students. That’s why she introduced a bill to make the rates exactly the same for one year.

Today, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced that he will be co-sponsoring Warren’s legislation, called the Bank On Student Loan Fairness Act:

Proud to cosponsor @senwarren‘s bill to give our students the same loan rates our biggest financial institutions get from the Fed

ai??i?? Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) May 14, 2013

Help us keep up the momentum.Ai??Weai??i??ve started a petition to support Warrenai??i??s bill. Click here to sign on and help us get started on ending the student debt crisis.

Last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced a bill that would guarantee that, for one year, the federal government would charge the same near-zero interest rates for student loans that it does now for Big Banks.

Warren’s bill has received praise from activists, and for good reason — student debt has become a crisis in the U.S. Here are five facts about that crisis:

Student Loan Debt Is Over $1 Trillion: As of last year, student loan debt exceeded a whopping $1 trillion. “Young consumers are shouldering much of the punishment in the form of substantial student-loan bills for doing exactly what they were told would be the key to a better life,” said Rohit Chopra of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at the time.
Student Debt Has Surpassed Most Other Types Of Consumer Debt: As of 2010, student loan debt outstanding surpassed auto loans, credit cards, and revolving home-equity loans, as this graphic from the Wall Street Journal shows:Ai??
The Average Debt Burden Is Double What It Was In 2003: In 2003, the average student loan debt burden wasAi??$10,649. Now it’sAi??$20,326.
It’s Very Difficult To Discharge Student Debt Thanks To A 1976 Law:Ai??You can discharge various forms of debt by declaring bankruptcy such as credit card and auto loans. But in 1976,Ai??Congress passed a lawAi??to make it very difficult to discharge student loan debt under a similar process. Reps. Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Danny Davis (D-IL) have repeatedly introduced legislation to reverse the 1976 law.
It Wasn’t Always This Way: For many in today’s generation, student debt is a fact of life — a necessary burden to getting a college degree. But the situation wasn’t always so dire. In California, universities up until …

The U.S. government offers very low-interest — in some cases, near-zero interest rate — loans — that is, if you are a Big Bank on Wall Street. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) doesn’t think it’s right for the government to give a better deal to the banks than to the American people.

So she has introduced a bill that would require federal student loan interest rates to match the rates given to banks. She spoke about this bill today on the Senate floor:

WARREN: Right now as I speak the federal government offers far lower interest rates for loans every single day. They just don’t do it for everyone. Right now the Big Bank can get a loan through the Federal Reserve discount window at a rate of about three quarters of one percent. but this summer a student who’s trying to get a loan to go to college will pay almost seven percent. In other words, the fed gov is going to charge interest rates nine times higher than the rate they charge the biggest banks. The same banks that destroyed millions of jobs and nearly broke the economy. That isn’t right. And that’s why I’m introducing legislation today to give students the same deal that we give the banks.

Watch Warren’s speech:

Warren’s legislation, called the Bank On Student Loan Fairness Act, will mandate that the Federal Reserve work to provide funds for the Department of Education to provide the same rates that it provides to Big Banks for a period of one year while Congress works on a long-term solution.

You should follow BoldProgressives on Twitter here.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) just sent out an email to her supporters responding to President Obama’s budget, which includes a chained CPI that would cut Social Security and veterans benefits.

Warren says she’s “shocked” by Obama’s proposal, which would amount to a “fancy way to say ‘cut benefits for seniors, the permanently disabled, and orphans.’” Read Warren’s full e-mail below:

Hi Mindy,

My brother David has always had the special spark in our family.

Like our two older brothers, David served in the military. When he got out, he started a small business — and when that one didn’t work out, he started another one. He couldn’t imagine an America where he wasn’t living by his wits every single day.

Year after year, my brother paid into Social Security. He never questioned it. He figured he was paying so that he — and a lot of other people — could have a secure retirement.

Today my brother lives on his Social Security. That’s about $1,100 a month. $13,200 a year.

I’m telling you my brother’s story not because it’s unusual, but because it’s like the story of so many other people. I can almost guarantee that you know someone — a family member, friend, or neighbor — who counts on Social Security checks to get by.

That’s why I was shocked to hear that the President’s newest budget proposal would cut $100 billion in Social Security benefits. Our Social Security system is critical to protecting middle class families, and we cannot allow it to be dismantled inch by inch.

The President’s policy proposal, known as “chained CPI,” would re-calculate the cost of living for Social Security beneficiaries. That new number won’t keep up with inflation on things like food and health care — the basics that we need to live.

In short, “chained …

Democratic Senate candidate U.S. Rep. Edward Markey reached out to progressive activists around the country on Thursday, doing a 45-minute phone call with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee… [He] touted his history favoring public financing of campaigns, advocating for net neutrality, opposing the Defense of Marriage Act and supporting a public option in health insurance, and eventually a single payer system.

Most Americans want the minimum wage to be raised — 73 percent of them, including 50 percent of self-identified Republicans. But Big Business wants to fight an increase, and has enlisted its allies in Congress to block it.

Last week, the Senate held a hearing on the minimum wage and a business owner testified that a wage hike may force businesses to fire workers. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) deftly dismantled this talking point, pointing out that, for example, it would only cost McDonalds four cents more per meal to provide a $10.10 minimum wage to all of its workers.

WARREN: During my Senate campaign, I ate a number 11 at McDonald’s many, many times a week. I know the price on that. $7.19. According to the data on the analysis of what would happen if we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 over three years, the price increase on that item would be about four cents. So instead of being $7.19 it would be $7.23. Are you telling me that’s unsustainable?

BUSINESS OWNER DAVID RUTIGLIANO: Senator Warren, not all restaurants are created equal. I’m in a full service restaurant business. McDonalds has efficiencies and they operate completely differently than I do. I have many jobs, many jobs that pay well above minimum wage. We have a retirement plan. We offer health insurance to our salaried employees. So my business is a little different. I can’t raise a four cent price. I mean I don’t have, I don’t operate like a fast food restaurant. I would hope you appreciate the distinction.

WARREN: I do appreciate the distinction and I’m not going to be in the business of being a McDonald’s representatives but they would talk about having some higher paid jobs and some opportunities for management and advancement …

Progressives fell in love with Elizabeth Warren because they saw in her a fighter ai??i?? someone who would break from Washingtonai??i??s longstanding tradition of cozying up to big banks and instead hold them accountable for bad behavior.

She hasnai??i??t disappointed.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal activist group which helped elect Warren, is thrilled with her so far, sending their members videos of her exchanges with regulators. An email last weekend solicits donations to ai???mobilize support for Warrenai??i??s agenda.ai??? ai???Bank regulators need to hold Wall Street accountable and Elizabeth Warren is doing her best to make sure that happens,ai??? said Matt Wall, a PCCC spokesman. ai???We couldnai??i??t be more proud.ai???

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) appeared before the Senate Banking Committee again today, and asked federal regulators about the topic of money laundering by Wall Street Banks.

Warren wondered aloud why Big Banks can get away with money laundering through drug lords and freely violate economic sanctions without being shut down, talking about the example of mega-bank HSBC.

WARREN: How many billions of dollars do you have to launder through drug lords, and how many economic sanctions do you have to violate before someone will consider shutting down a financial institution like this?

DAVID COHEN, REGULATOR: We determined the appropriate response [with HSBC] there was a very very significant penalty against the institution […]

WARREN: How many billions of dollars do you have to launder for drug lords before somebody says we’re shutting you down?!

Watch Warren’s grilling of regulators:

Ai??Recall that HSBC moved $881 million in drugAi??traffickingAi??money, and only faced a paltry $1.9 billion fine for it.

You should follow BoldProgressives on Twitter here.

Today, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the Senate Banking Committee. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) asked Bernanke about the $83.5 billion subsidy that Big Banks get every year from American taxpayers.

Warren suggested that Bernanke support a policy of ending this subsidy. After a back and forth with him about the question of “too big to fail,” Warren suggested that Big Banks — backed by the government — are causing smaller banks to get “smashed.”

WARREN: $83 billion says that there really will be a bailout for the largest financial institutions if they fail.

BERNANKE:That’s the expectation of markets, but that doesn’t mean we have to do it. […] Too big to fail is not absolute. […]

WARREN: It is working like an insurance policy. Ordinary folks pay for home owners insurance, ordinary folks pay for car insurance, and these big financial institutions are getting cheaper borrowing to the tune of $83 billion in a single year simply because people believe that the government would step in and bail them out. And I’m just saying, if they’re getting it, why shouldn’t they pay for it?

BERNANKE: I think we should get rid of it. […]

WARREN: I know we’re both trying to go in the same direction, I’m just pointing out that in all that space in between what’s happening is the Big Banks are getting a terrific break, and the little banks are just getting smashed on this, they’re not getting that kind of break, and that has long-term impact for all of the financial system.

BERNANKE: I agree with you 100 percent.

Watch it:

You should follow BoldProgressives on Twitter here.