Elizabeth Warren Named Special Advisor To President

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency has gotten one step closer to a reality, with Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren being named a special advisor to President Obama, focusing on the agency’s creation.

Once the CFPA is finally set up, Obama has said he plans to nominate Warren to be the agency’s director, which may result in a confirmation hearing worth watching.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Warren will be named an assistant to the president and special advisor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in charge of launching the new agency and setting its mission.

In this new position, Warren will be responsible for recruiting agency staff, setting the policy mission and serving as the CFPA’s public face.

Ms. Warren (at Last!) Goes to Washington [WSJ]
Warren To Snag CFPA Directorship?
Rap Video Pimps Elizabeth Warren For CFPA Head
Consumer Advocate Says Protection Agency Should Be Like Harvard’s Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren Wants To End Exploding Mortgages


Edit Your Comment

  1. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Yay, my tip get in.

    Warren 2016!

  2. smo0 says:

    YES SHE CAN!!!

  3. framitz says:

    Do we need a teacher? Or do we need a DOER.
    I prefer someone with real world experience.

    • Nick says:

      You’re kidding, right? Warren spent her life involving herself and studying all aspects of the consumer financial industry. No “real world” person will ever have anywhere close to the breadth of experience she has.

    • pop top says:

      Plus she has a college degree, so she must be an elitist.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Exactly what world experience do you require for someone of this position? Truly curious.

    • Rayon Fog says:

      Real experience at what, exactly? Running an agency that up until now never existed? Working in the private sector? I’m asking seriously.. who is more qualified?

    • mantari says:

      Yes! Of course! A *doer*! How about someone from the very industries that will be regulated? Yeah! What could possibly go wrong with that idea?

  4. Big Mama Pain says:

    This overly cautious tip toeing is pissing me off. Unless he plans to nominate her before November, I predict her confirmation will be very difficult. Which means…either Obama knows this and is going ahead anyway because he’s drinking the Geithner koolaid, or he’s a fool. Clearly he’s been talked into taking this baby step of having her set up the agency to see whether she can manage it, something everyone keeps complaining about. Sorry, sir, it’s not enough.

  5. fs2k2isfun says:

    Great, instead of having her stand up to congress and defend her record, our dear leader sneaks her in through the back door so she is accountable to no one. I love this administration.

    • Rayon Fog says:

      Only the thing is, this Congress would be too busy stuffing their thumbs into their ears and blowing raspberries to actually be considerate of what this woman had to say.

      • fs2k2isfun says:

        While that may be true, it’s not an excuse. The confirmation process exists for a reason and I can’t support circumventing it or appointing “czars” to do things under the radar as they are apt to do.

        • Amnesiac85 says:

          Tell that to every President of the past 40 or so years, because it’s been done under every one of them.

        • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

          What would they be confirming her for? Advisors don’t have to be confirmed. Carl Rove would have never have gotten past the front door if advisors had to be confirmed. Sounds like you are holding Obama up to higher standards than any other president has ever been held to.

    • Tightlines says:

      You mean be properly nominated like Jane Stanch was? Who is Jane Stanch, you ask? She was the president’s choice for the 6th Circuit appeals court. It took more than 400 days for the Senate to confirm her. Why 400 days? No one knows. Shits and giggles, I guess. Perhaps that’s why the president is bypassing this process?

    • humphrmi says:

      Pure BS. The legislature regularly holds up Obama’s nominees for political reasons.

      And, the prior administration did this too.

    • Big Mama Pain says:

      Maybe you should do a little research to know what you’re talking about before you spout off. She’s being appointed to assist in setting up the agency with Geithner, and there is a possibility that she will be put up for nomination once it is set up. Basically, she’s helping Geithner do his job because he really doesn’t have any experience in protecting consumers.

      Can we add terms like “Dear Leader” to Godwin’s Law, since they are also references to communism?

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      No one’s sneaking anyone in. Did you read the article? She’s not going to be the head of anything without being nominated. She’s going to be an advisor for a project. She can’t be in charge of anything, nor can the process be sidestepped. You are just making shit up because you don’t like Obama.

      If you are going to talk smack, at least be educated about it and don’t just make crap up.

    • edosan says:

      I wasn’t aware advisors has to have special confirmation. You must have a copy of the “New and Improved” Constitution.

  6. wiggie2gone says:

    I kind of want to see her in a congressional hearing. It would be hard to say who would grill who.

  7. TuxthePenguin says:

    There are two things that worry me:

    #1 – this is a backdoor nomination that bypasses the Senate. Come on, lets not do things like that. Let her stand up and deal (and take) some blows in the confirmation process. Worries me even more that he won’t do it now – does he think it’ll be easier after November?

    #2 – what happens when this agency gets the full attention of lobbyists and (eventually) is renominated by Republicans? That’s my #1 concern with any new “regulatory body” – it might sound great, but eventually the other side gets the reins again.

    Ah, why not, #3 – why do we need a NEW board? Why couldn’t we step back, look at all the regulators over the financial markets, and reorganize/make more efficient? Banks now have one more group to answer to…

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      If I understand the Agency, the banks now actually how several less groups to answer to.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      Actually, it is not. Again, advisors don’t have to be nominated or confirmed by anyone. No president has ever had to have advisors approved, so why should Obama> Second, did you read this part?

      “Once the CFPA is finally set up, Obama has said he plans to nominate Warren to be the agency’s director, which may result in a confirmation hearing worth watching.”

      So, as is legally required, when/if she is nominated, she must be confirmed.

  8. bschaa00 says:

    SWEEEEEEET more professors in the administration! Sarcasm. Im concurring with mantari below.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      Have you ever read her books or heard her speak? She’s got the best ideas I’ve ever heard. And, oh, the horrors, having educated people in office.

  9. Lucky225 says:

    Taxpayer dollars well spent, the only regulatory agency we need is the Internet Hate Machine.

  10. MedicallyNeedy says:

    We need to hear from her. She needs a pulpit. Don’t let her disappear from view!

  11. hansolo247 says:

    I think she’s a good choice for this, as she is level-headed and knowledgeable. .

    I do not, however, support the CFPA’s existence. It’s just one more regulatory agency that will watch porn and collect paychecks, much like the other agencies do. And we can’t afford more highly paid (don’t kid yourself) pencil-pushers and yet another boring building that takes up a city block in downtown DC.

    The sidestepping of the nomination process is downright seedy. I don’t give a crap how long it will take…follow the process. Our current President is even better at subverting the constitution than the last one was.

    Why don’t they just nominate her to head the FTC?? You know, the other agency that does the same darn thing.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Either you haven’t read what the agency is is all about, or you just don’t believe it or believe it will do as it is described.

      And, to echo others, she’s being appointed a temporary position, one that no president has ever had to have approved by Congress. Should be given a permanent position, the article actually says she’d have to be vetted and accepted by Congress.


      • hansolo247 says:

        I know that the only thing this agency will achieve is increasing font sizes on fine print.

        • blakek says:

          Mind tossing me some winning lottery numbers while you are using your psychic powers? I’m worried that they won’t do anything also, but with Warren in charge it’s the most hopeful thing I’ve seen in years…

  12. StoicLion says:

    Adding my two cents here. In my experience, experience usually trumps credentials. Real world experience gives you feedback on the strength of one’s skills, much more than studying in an academic environment ever could.

    Let me give you an analogy. I am a graduate of the US Naval Academy. Throughout the academic year, I learned about various aspects of shiphandling. But it wasn’t until the summers, when I temporarily served on ships (cruisers, amphib ships) did I put those lessons into real-world practice. The classroom lessons were important but not nearly as important as applying those lessons with a ship in responding to non-controlled environment (ie, the ocean).

    • blakek says:

      Well, obviously we should pick one of the people with real hands on experience in successfully setting up U.S. consumer credit protection agencies… Oh wait there isn’t anyone. About the closest you can find is the former head of the IMF Simon Johnson, and he’s like the head of the Elizabeth Warren fan club.