Elizabeth Warren: The Obama Administration Chose to Protect Wall Street, Not Families

AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


In a new interview with Salon, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) leveled a bit of harsh criticism towards President Barack Obama’s administration, charging his financial advisors with routinely favoring big banks following the financial crisis, rather than looking out for ordinary Americans.

“They protected Wall Street,” Warren said. “Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over.”

But the senator, who was responding to columnist Thomas Frank’s question regarding Democrats’ mounting disappointment since the 2008 election, stopped short of issuing a scathing rebuke, largely pointing the finger at Obama’s economic team for deregulation failures. She also made sure to credit the president with the creation of the Consumer Financial Bureau.

“If Barack Obama had not been president of the United States we would not have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Period,” Warren said. “I’m completely convinced of that…He was the one who refused to throw the agency under the bus and made sure that his team kept the agency alive and on the table.”

As for continued confusion regarding the bureau’s name itself, Warren jokingly blamed Republicans for the head-scratching.

“It was named by Republicans to be as confusing a name as possible. I used to think of it as the four random initials. I just call it my consumer agency. So that’s it, just the consumer agency.”

Warren also noted that in light of Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent resignation announcement, she would work to confirm a successor who will fully prosecute banking executives.

Warren’s remarks follow last week’s meeting at the White House between Obama and financial regulators to propose additional regulatory measures.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest