Ezra Klein & Matt Yglesias react to Elizabeth Warren's Confronting Fed Chair Yellen & TPP Comments

[KoKo]

Elizabeth Warren is furious over Obama’s proposed trade deal
Updated by Ezra Klein on February 26, 2015, 10:30 a.m. ET

(Nice Video of Warren Confronting Fed Chair, Janet Yellen at the link)

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8114291/elizabeth-warren-tpp

Elizabeth Warren has a talent for making huge fights out of obscure nominations and economic policy provisions. On Tuesday, Warren took aim at Scott Alvarez, the Federal Reserve's powerful general counsel, for his views on banking regulation. Virtually no one knows who Alvarez is. But he's arguably one of the five or six most powerful economic policymakers in Washington. He's the Leo McGarry of the Fed. Warren is unusual in possessing the policy chops to know that Alvarez matters as well as the political heat to make liberals care about him.But making Scott Alvarez a household name is child's play compared to Warren's latest fight: whipping up outrage over the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. In a Washington Post op-ed today, Warren writes, "ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court."

Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

Warren goes on to argue that the rules of that arbitration end up favoring corporations both in the complaints that get hard and the decisions that get rendered. Interestingly, this isn't just a liberal crusade: the libertarian think tank Cato has a lengthy brief slamming the ISDS as "an unnecessary, unreasonable, and unwise provision to include in trade agreements" that, among other sins, "is not even essential to the task of freeing trade."

This puts Warren on a direct collision course with the Obama administration: passing the TPP deal is one of their top priorities this year.

So can Warren get people to care about ISDS? Maybe! As my colleague Matt Yglesias wrote in his newsletter last night, Warren "has a unique knack among today's elected officials for seizing on things that are languishing in obscurity and making them blow up. The greatest trick the special interests ever played was getting the world to stop paying attention. Warren makes people pay attention."

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8114291/elizabeth-warren-tpp

-----------------------------------
Why Elizabeth Warren is so great

by Matt Yglesias

I don't always agree with Elizabeth Warren, but Danielle Kurtzleben did a piece for us this week that I think shows what makes her such a vital figure. At Janet Yellen's monetary policy hearing, Warren took aim at the Federal Reserve's General Counsel, Scott Alvarez. Alvarez is one of the people with the highest importance-to-fame ratios in the whole American government. His existence — to say nothing of his work — is incredibly obscure. But Warren used her considerable celebrity and her dorky charisma to shine a light on it.

And she has a unique knack among today's elected officials for seizing on things that are languishing in obscurity and making them blow up. The greatest trick the special interests ever played was getting the world to stop paying attention. Warren makes people pay attention, and it's great.

http://tinyletter.com/mattyglesias/letters/i-m-writing-a-newsletter

[ladjf]

1. I don't know whether or not to trust Sen. Warren, but,

the lady obviously has some brains, and that's a good thing. nt

[Enthusiast]

9. Can you tell us, is there something about her that makes you doubt her veracity?

I find her just about the single most convincing member of congress with only a very few exceptions.

[ladjf]

13. No, I can't tell you specifically why I don't trust her as yet.

I agree with most things she has said so far. However, she has only been in the Senate for a short time. I don't know whether she is "on the level" or simply using her intelligence to make the best political calculations for her interests. That's not a criticism of her but more of a reflection of my own thought processes.

At this point, however , I would prefer her over Ms. Clinton, who I definitely don't trust.

[Enthusiast]

14. I think we would be wise to remain suspicious of any potential candidate.

[JDPriestly]

15. One way to get to know Elizabeth Warren better is to read her book, A Fighting

Chance. I recommend it. I enjoyed it.

[think]

2. k&R /nt

[djean111]

3. It almost seems to me like people are deliberately ignoring this - because

they keep bleating that we already have court cases and such - and they either don't see or don't care that this sets up a separate corporate court system, outside of a country's courts.
If Warren was incorrect, the authors of that article would have said so. This is what Bernie and Grayson have pointed out, too.
WTF is pretty much all I can summon, at present.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Everyone should watch that video

It's "HOLY CRAP!!!" awesome.

[WillyT]

5. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[tclambert]

6. She is articulate and knowledgeable. I hope she never shakes hands with

Sen. James Inhofe (the senator with the snowball). The resulting matter-antimatter explosion could crack the Earth into pieces.

[Enthusiast]

8. Inhofe would probably melt like the Wicked Witch.

[zeemike]

11. Oh you are asking for a clip there.

Could not resist it...besides it kicks this post I recommend...

[Enthusiast]

12. ...

[Enthusiast]

7. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

I get the distinct impression that Elizabeth Warren is one of the Very Few® people in government that still represent the best interests of the average American.

If there are more that represent our interests why don't they speak up in a substantive way on issues that concern our future?

Seems like all we get is a bunch of thinly disguised weasel words.

Like many of you, I am sick to death of the bullshit.

[abelenkpe]

10. k&R