Elizabeth Warren comfortably in the top 1%

Some people might think that I enjoy picking on Elizabeth Warren.  And they would be right.  Seriously, she should consider changing her campaign slogan to something like: “Elizabeth Warren – because it takes a member of the 1% to micromanage the rest of the 1%.”

This morning’s Boston Herald editorial page has a field day with Warren’s recently released financial disclosures:

When a candidate initially enters a race, he or she usually conducts a vulnerability study to investigate potential problems in his or her background. One of the ultimate goals of this research is to prevent the candidate from making false claims or attacking an opponent on a difficulty they share. You don’t want to be a hypocrite.

… Warren’s people either failed to do one or decided that because Lizzy is a Democrat, they can do anything they want and never be held accountable.

… Lizzy has suggested she believes it takes a village to get rich. Her experience indicates it actually takes a part-time job at Harvard. In 2009, her salary was $350,000 and she earned $429,000 for 2010 and 2011.

She also raked in $136,000 in royalties from her books, $10,000 for lecturing at a Boston law firm, $90,000 for consulting for a Florida law firm and $43,000 for working for Traveler’s Insurance.

Wait one minute; I thought insurance companies were evil, according to the Obama administration.

Let’s not forget the Oklahoma transplant earned a hefty salary for part-time government work. As a special adviser for President Obama, she was compensated $165,000 from September 2010 through August 2011 and she received $192,000 for serving on the Congressional panel overseeing TARP.

So we can say that based on her own experience, she’s at least part right. No one gets rich on his or her own . . . when they are working for the government. Because that’s taxpayer money.

… The only thing that could make her a more hypocritical class warrior is if she anchored a yacht in Rhode Island.

The article also lists other assets including $3 million in investments plus a home worth between $1 million and $5 million – which, according to the Herald, is actually quite a modest dwelling compared to the digs owned by the Kennedys or Deval Patrick or John F. Kerry.

And here’s another eye-roller: Consider Warren’s $429,000 salary as a Harvard law professor. Then consider the fact that Warren openly supports the Occupy movement, which includes a significant number of disgruntled recent college graduates struggling to pay off six-figure student loan debts that are at least partly the result of sky-high salaries paid to ‘superstar’ university professors and administrators.

Elizabeth Warren was born in Oklahoma City, and I have friends here who know Warren personally.  They have repeatedly vouched for her character and her commitment to protecting low income Americans and consumers in general from the often predatory lending and credit policies of Big Banking.  I am not going to challenge the sincerity of Warren’s lifetime body of advocacy work.

But what I will challenge is her misguided and divisive embrace of class envy as an election-year talking point.  It is now abundantly clear that while Warren blasts ‘the rich’ on the campaign trail, she has no problem accepting top-tier compensation for her work as a consultant, adviser, lecturer, and author — just like John “Two Americas” Edwards, who had no problem accepting nearly half a million dollars in ‘consulting fees’ from a hedge fund for his help in studying how the financial markets affect those living in poverty.  To be honest, I believe that deep down inside, Elizabeth Warren and John Edwards really are bothered by the specter of poverty and the plight of low income earners.  But despite their public rhetoric, the private actions of people like Edwards and Warren demonstrate that they are really no different themselves than ‘the rich’ that they seek to punish with taxes, regulations, and social stigma.

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 16, 2012.
Filed under Asshats, Hypocrisy.
Tagged with: .


Both comments and pings are currently closed.
  • herddog505

    Call it noblesse oblige.  Call it guilt.  Call it do-gooderism.  It’s all the same thing: the idea that people with wealth, power and priviledge have the responsibility, education and, hence, OBLIGATION to tell their inferiors how to live their lives.  I’m rich, but I shall throw you a bone… and tell you how to chew it.

    Personally, I don’t give a flying f*ck whether Warren, Edwards, Barry, or anybody else is in it for themselves* or whether they really, truly, deeply Care: they need to leave me alone to live my life as I see fit.

    As for libs who buy into this garbage… Can you imagine the howls that would go up if Warren et al were motivated by religion and not their soppy, sloppy “progressive” ideology?  HORRORS!  Why is it commendable for a Warren or an Edwards to say, “You’ve got to give money to the poor because it’s ‘fair’” while it’s unconstitutional and outright evil to say, “You’ve got to give money to the poor because that’s what God says to do”?

    —-

    (*) I believe that even the most altuistic person IS in it for themselves: what a more selfish do-gooder might get in cash, titles, awards, honors, etc., they get in a feeling of virtue.  “Look at ME!  Look at how NICE and DECENT I am!” This is not a bad thing unless and until the do-gooder starts spending other people’s money to purchase his own feeling of virtue.  Then, it’s no longer “charity”.  It is theft.

  • herddog505

    Call it noblesse oblige.  Call it guilt.  Call it do-gooderism.  It’s all the same thing: the idea that people with wealth, power and priviledge have the responsibility, education and, hence, OBLIGATION to tell their inferiors how to live their lives.  I’m rich, but I shall throw you a bone… and tell you how to chew it.

    Personally, I don’t give a flying f*ck whether Warren, Edwards, Barry, or anybody else is in it for themselves* or whether they really, truly, deeply Care: they need to leave me alone to live my life as I see fit.

    As for libs who buy into this garbage… Can you imagine the howls that would go up if Warren et al were motivated by religion and not their soppy, sloppy “progressive” ideology?  HORRORS!  Why is it commendable for a Warren or an Edwards to say, “You’ve got to give money to the poor because it’s ‘fair’” while it’s unconstitutional and outright evil to say, “You’ve got to give money to the poor because that’s what God says to do”?

    —-

    (*) I believe that even the most altuistic person IS in it for themselves: what a more selfish do-gooder might get in cash, titles, awards, honors, etc., they get in a feeling of virtue.  “Look at ME!  Look at how NICE and DECENT I am!” This is not a bad thing unless and until the do-gooder starts spending other people’s money to purchase his own feeling of virtue.  Then, it’s no longer “charity”.  It is theft.

  • herddog505

    Call it noblesse oblige.  Call it guilt.  Call it do-gooderism.  It’s all the same thing: the idea that people with wealth, power and priviledge have the responsibility, education and, hence, OBLIGATION to tell their inferiors how to live their lives.  I’m rich, but I shall throw you a bone… and tell you how to chew it.
     
    Personally, I don’t give a flying f*ck whether Warren, Edwards, Barry, or anybody else is in it for themselves* or whether they really, truly, deeply Care: they need to leave me alone to live my life as I see fit.
     
    As for libs who buy into this garbage… Can you imagine the howls that would go up if Warren et al were motivated by religion and not their soppy, sloppy “progressive” ideology?  HORRORS!  Why is it commendable for a Warren or an Edwards to say, “You’ve got to give money to the poor because it’s ‘fair’” while it’s unconstitutional and outright evil to say, “You’ve got to give money to the poor because that’s what God says to do”?
     
    —-
     
    (*) I believe that even the most altuistic person IS in it for themselves: what a more selfish do-gooder might get in cash, titles, awards, honors, etc., they get in a feeling of virtue.  “Look at ME!  Look at how NICE and DECENT I am!” This is not a bad thing unless and until the do-gooder starts spending other people’s money to purchase his own feeling of virtue.  Then, it’s no longer “charity”.  It is theft.

  • herddog505

    Call it noblesse oblige.  Call it guilt.  Call it do-gooderism.  It’s all the same thing: the idea that people with wealth, power and priviledge have the responsibility, education and, hence, OBLIGATION to tell their inferiors how to live their lives.  I’m rich, but I shall throw you a bone… and tell you how to chew it.
     
    Personally, I don’t give a flying f*ck whether Warren, Edwards, Barry, or anybody else is in it for themselves* or whether they really, truly, deeply Care: they need to leave me alone to live my life as I see fit.
     
    As for libs who buy into this garbage… Can you imagine the howls that would go up if Warren et al were motivated by religion and not their soppy, sloppy “progressive” ideology?  HORRORS!  Why is it commendable for a Warren or an Edwards to say, “You’ve got to give money to the poor because it’s ‘fair’” while it’s unconstitutional and outright evil to say, “You’ve got to give money to the poor because that’s what God says to do”?
     
    —-
     
    (*) I believe that even the most altuistic person IS in it for themselves: what a more selfish do-gooder might get in cash, titles, awards, honors, etc., they get in a feeling of virtue.  “Look at ME!  Look at how NICE and DECENT I am!” This is not a bad thing unless and until the do-gooder starts spending other people’s money to purchase his own feeling of virtue.  Then, it’s no longer “charity”.  It is theft.

  • jim_m

    While it takes an income of $380,000 to be in the top 1% nationally, in Boston your income needs to be closer to $525,000-$550,000, so techinically Warren would not see herself as the top 1% because in her area she isn’t. Furthermore, being an outsider from Oklahoma, she would never be admitted to the blue blood circles that someone like John Kerry would travel in. 

    So despite her obvious wealth and total disconnect from the lives of normal Americans her world is so skewed that she probably does see herself as a proletarian worker compared to those she so obviously aspires to be a part of.

    And I would agree with any one of Herddog505′s comments that she is one of a long line of Massachusetts busy bodies that believes that she knows better how to live your life than you do and she is going to do everything within her power to force you to live the life she thinks is best whether you like it or not.  That is the way MA dems think and act and she is far from unusual in that regard.

  • herddog505

    What the hell is wrong with Disqus???

    • jim_m

      You can at least edit your comments to delete/shrink them.  That is at least one benefit of Disqus

      • herddog505

        Maybe on a good day.  Today is not that day.

        • Gmacr1

          There is something very wrong with a verification system that hoses the blog for speed and ability to comment or edit comments.

        • Hank_M

          I had been having major issues with IE.
          Since switching to FireFox, very very few problems.

          • Brucehenry

            I’ve never had any problems with Disqus on either Firefox or Google Chrome.

  • GarandFan

    “You don’t want to be a hypocrite.”

    Huh?  It hasn’t bothered them this far.

    • http://2012.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

      It doesn’t say “Democrats don’t want…”

      I assume you and I were the target audience, not Elizabeth Warren. Nor Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Tim Geithner, …

  • Hank_M

    If Warren is sincere about giving a damn about the middle class, as opposed to using them as subject matter to becoming even more rich and powerful, I’d like to know if she paid
    the voluntary higher Ma income tax rate.

    I’d like to see her charitable contributions also.

    And if she really is concerned about the rich not paying their fair share, then maybe she can join the push to have Harvard paying more than 2 million a year in voluntary taxes.
    From what I could find, Harvard in 2007 made 7 Billion in tax free investments along with over 2 Billion in income.

    The only reason Warren is concerned about the middle class is she’s getting rich off of them.
     

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    It is all a matter of perception.

    What we see as blatant hypocrisy, Democrats see as “Monday.”

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

      Exactly. The blatant hypocrisy we see in the GOP is so common, we know it’s just another Monday.

      Also, the common conservative projection of hypocrisy onto Democrats/liberals is also just another day of the week.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

    The only confusion here is if you see Warren as being against the wealthy, purely for being wealthy.

    She isn’t. She is for what she thinks is best for America AND for the 1% – a well-regulated economy that won’t roar off a cliff into disaster. Which is exactly what took out our economy in 2007.

    And this is also how members of the 1% can donate to her and eventually vote for her – because they agree that the best way forward for all 100% is capitalism with rules and safeguards in place.

    Just like putting brakes on cars doesn’t mean you’re against driving, or even against driving fast.

    • JustRuss

      Be nice if she ever said anything like that, nice of you to put words in her mouth to suit your idea of her.

      • herddog505

        Bingo.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

        You mean, like in the actual text that’s superimposed over her picture on this very freaking article on the home page???

        Here, I looked up the text for you.

        “You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us
        paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and
        seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against
        this — because of the work the rest of us did.

        “Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific,
        or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the
        underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward
        for the next kid who comes along.”

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb
  • charles0202

    The fact that Elizabeth Warren is a member of the top 1% actually makes me trust her more than if she was not. Why is this you ask? Because she is actually arguing AGAINST her own best interests in favour of what is good for society as a whole. It is natural for people in the top 1% to vote for what is best for their constituent, so I would expect the people arguing against the abuse of the system by the top 1% to be part of the 99%. But she is not. And so she is not greedily trying to change the system for her own personal gain like what lobbyists or corrupt senators do. This lack of self-interest behind her motivations tells me that she is someone with personal principles that extend beyond material goods. We need more people like that in politics today.