58°
GRAFTON, Mass. - U.S. Senate hopeful Elizabeth Warren brought her campaign blitz to the Grafton Democratic Town Committee Sunday morning, promising to do her best to move the country forward.
"I'm running for U.S. Senate because I believe this is a moment in history," Warren said before a crowd of Democrats from Grafton, Auburn, Northbridge, Millbury and other surrounding towns. "The decision about whether or not this country goes forward as a country that increasingly says 'I got mine, the rest of you are on your own or a country that says 'we believe in winners but we believe that everyone invests in making sure the right conditions are in place so the next kid has a chance to make it big and the kid after that and the kid after that. That's what this election is about."
Warren is seeking the Senate seat now held by U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, who was elected in 2010 to fill the vacancy left by the death of U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy. She visited the Grafton Inn as part of a whirlwind tour of Central Mass. towns this weekend, including a stop at Shrewsbury's Dinky's Diner following her Grafton appearance.
Warren was the keynote speaker at the Grafton Democrats' bi-annual Froment-Moroney Memorial Breakfast, which this year honored U.S. Rep. Richard E. Neal, who loses Grafton in the 2012 redistricting, with the 11th Froment-Moroney Leadership by Action Award. Receiving the 7th John Sullivan Citizen Activist Award was resident Charles Bolack, a former town official and founder of the Grafton Suburban Credit Union, Grafton Water District, Grafton Land Trust and The Grafton News.
Both Neal and U.S. Rep. James McGovern, who gains Grafton back in the 2012 redistricting, took the opportunity to speak highly of Warren, an American bankruptcy law expert and Harvard Law School professor who led the conception and establishment of the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
"The idea that in this state, it would not be a Democratic senator is ridiculous," Neal said.
Warren admitted she has never sought public office before but noted that she has run a successful campaign to establish the Consumer Financial Projection Bureau, which dates back to the financial market crash in 2008.
"This is like coming out of the Great Depression -- what rules will we write, because they will shape what kind of country we will have for half a century," Warren said.
"Everyone was talking about the big megabanks," Warren added. "But no one was talking about what was happening at the family level, the household level. I kept saying to people 'We should never forget, this economy was broken one lousy mortgage at a time.' And if we don't fix the rules at the family level, the household level, we're just inviting this problem to happen again. This time, it was mortgages that got packaged and sold up the line and poisoned the system but next time, it'll be tricky credit cards or student loans... it will just keep happening."
Warren had an idea for an agency to give families a strong voice in Washington. The response she got was two-pronged: it was a great idea, she was told, but she shouldn't do it because the big bank lobbyists would organize to kill it.
"I thought what people were saying to me was 'try harder,'" she said to laughter. "I think I grew up reading too many Nancy Drew novels."
The answer, she decided, was to organize. The House passed the legislation -- due in no small part to the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, she said, and then it went to the Senate "where things go to die."
In January 2009, the Wall Street Journal ran the headline "Consumer agency dead." According to the story, the Senate was going to report out all aspects of the bill except the consumer agency. With just three weeks to go before the bill was reported out, Warren organized more than 200 groups across the country -- AFL-CIO, the AARP, the Consumers Union among others -- and made sure their members' voices were heard.
"We just kept asking for one thing: We want a vote. It's the American way," she said. "We were everywhere. We even had a frame for the vote: you could vote for banks or you could vote for families. There were some who objected to that."
Warren got her public vote -- and her Consumer Financial Projection Bureau.
When the question came to run for U.S. Senate, it was that story that made her believe it was possible.
"If we care about something and we get organized and we get behind it, we make things happen," she said. "When somebody tells you you can't get anything done in Washington, just say back to them 'consumer agency.'"
Comments (17)
Does it really make sense to argue back and forth which of our two Senate candidates is richer or which one "earned" their riches to a greater extent? They are both pretty wealthy, as are most people running for office in America today. Also I feel I should point out some things.
1. Being a professor, especially at a large research university, is not a part-time job.
2. Pell Grants and other government loan and grant programs are not what keeps university tuition up.
3. Most schools have scholarships which they use to attract smart people. Elizabeth Warren benefited from some of these. There are fairly sound economic reasons (from the university's perspective) for doing this.
4. Tax dollars will never be left alone. As it is, there are a whole lot of governmental programs which don't do anything near as important as strengthening equality of opportunity in our country. Let's cut those before we start talking about taking money out of student loan and grant programs.
thx for putting words in my mouth John B. I think if you re-read the comment, you'll learn that I was speaking to COLLEGE education, not k-12 But while you're on the subject, yes...I think it could use a good dismantling & rebuilding in order to HELP the poorer communities. But that's not what this article is about, it's about Lizzy "I'm an American Indian" Warren, (well, really only 1/32) wanting US taxpayers to put private individuals through college.
My parents were by no mean wealthy, I worked through high school, college & took out loans. I didn't not attend a private university as it was not in my means. But I got a degree.
Why dont' you ask Harvard why they charge nearly $55k/year to attend. PRobably because they're paying Lizzie $350 for a part time job.. Does that make economic sense to you?
Liz Warren is a well paid professor and proud of it. Scott Brown is a millionaire Senator with six residences, who wears a barncoat and drives a pickup truck in order to pretend to be a common working man. A true phony who only cares about big business and major corporations.
Elizabeth Warren also found a way to pay for college and it had to do with smarts and hard work.
The back stories of each of the candidates are not nearly as important as the fact that Scott Brown, obedient Republican that he is, will vote to protect the richest 1%. Elizabeth Warren has always worked to protect the 99%.
Common cents you would dismantle the public school system because it is supported by the taxes.
So the rich could send their children to school while the poor parents would be unable to send their children to school.
The elite's would love this system as it would lock their children and grandchildren into permanent positions of power. What is more amazing is that you bought into this dysfunctional thought process.
Scott Brown found a way to pay for college. So what? You don't have to like it or agree. It was legal and not a burden on taxpayers.
Lizzie would have us subsidize students to go to school. Leave my tax dollars alone. You get enough already. Why should be "enable" these high priced universities to keep their prices high by giving kids tax dollars to go to an expensive university?
Take a look at state colleges and universities on a state level as well. Do you like paying Billy Bulger's $200k a year PENSION!!??
I don't!
So what does Scott centerfold Brown purpose about the price of college? Maybe the current students should follow his example.
Lord, I hope not.
and what about her false claims of being of native american ancestry and even letting 2 prior employers and one current, Harvard, tout her as being a minority professor.
seems disingenuous.
and what about her false claims of being of native american ancestry and even letting 2 prior employers and one current, Harvard, tout her as being a minority professor.
seems disingenuous.
mary q, you got me. I read the article wrong....still she took an interest free loan from Harvard while she claims to be an advocate of affordable college educations...
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1061126791
Wow-so much to comment on here, I'll be back a few more times. But this one caught my eye:
"The idea that in this state, it would not be a Democratic senator is ridiculous," Neal said.
Uh, yeah. Rep. Neal? Are you aware that this kind of thinking is what alienates independent voters and makes them vote Republican "just because"? Are you aware that Martha Coakley's very bad attitude and presumptuousness about walking int "Ted Kennedy's seat" is what gave us Scott Brown? Dude, lose the 'tude.
I am voting for Elizabeth Warren not because she is a Democrat and "this state" must have a Democrat. I am voting for her because she most clearly articulates the underlying causes of our current economic woes, and proposes some solutions with considering. She is a consumer advocate, and favors a strong middle class. She has been critical of Democrats when warranted, and her criticisms of Republicans have not been ad hominem attacks but fact-based arguments.
I'm a committed Democrat, but the minute the Republican party becomes sane again, folks like Reps. Neal and McGovern are going to have to work a lot harder to keep me in the blue. And I have to say, around here (central MA), my impression is that some local Republicans are pretty sane. So step it up.
Bruinsfancam8, Ms. Warren attended the University of Houston, not Harvard. UH is still a reasonably-priced regional public university. Sadly, though, it is getting less reasonably-priced every day, for any number of reasons beyond the scope of this article.
Also, she was not "given" her UH education. She earned scholarships for part, and paid the rest by working.
Can we keep the facts straight?
College tuition is ridiculous. I don't care if you're talking private or public. They get you either way. Salaries at our public universities are crazy. Some of the highest paid public employees work at Mass universities. Should a professor (including Warren) really warrant $300k salary? They don't work full time either.
Go to the Boston Herald's website. You can look up state salaries. Sort highest to lowest. The first 200 people work for the state university system. No one making less than $200k all the way up to $750k. Excessive?? What do you think.....and that's only the first 200 entries.
I would love it if someone did a business plan for a reasonably priced college. I'd bet my mortgage that it can be done much less that what we're being charged in today's market. But we all keep mortgaging our houses, making kids take out ridiculous loans (I don't care what the percentage rate is) to get a degree in Art History. Personally, I think those silly liberal arts degrees should be banned. What are we going to do with a workforce full of art majors?
Bravo, John B.
In Spain, the unemployment rate among workers under 25 is more than 50 percent. In Ireland almost a third of the young are unemployed. Here in America, youth unemployment is “only” 16.5 percent, which is still terrible — but things could be worse.
And sure enough, many politicians are doing all they can to guarantee that things will, in fact, get worse. We’ve been hearing a lot about the war on women, which is real enough. But there’s also a war on the young, which is just as real even if it’s better disguised. And it’s doing immense harm, not just to the young, but to the nation’s future.
Let’s start with some advice Mitt Romney gave to college students during an appearance last week. After denouncing President Obama’s “divisiveness,” the candidate told his audience, “Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.”
The first thing you notice here is, of course, the Romney touch — the distinctive lack of empathy for those who weren’t born into affluent families, who can’t rely on the Bank of Mom and Dad to finance their ambitions. But the rest of the remark is just as bad in its own way.
I mean, “get the education”? And pay for it how? Tuition at public colleges and universities has soared, in part thanks to sharp reductions in state aid. Mr. Romney isn’t proposing anything that would fix that; he is, however, a strong supporter of the Ryan budget plan, which would drastically cut federal student aid, causing roughly a million students to lose their Pell grants.
So how, exactly, are young people from cash-strapped families supposed to “get the education”? Back in March Mr. Romney had the answer: Find the college “that has a little lower price where you can get a good education.” Good luck with that. But I guess it’s divisive to point out that Mr. Romney’s prescriptions are useless for Americans who weren’t born with his advantages.
There is, however, a larger issue: even if students do manage, somehow, to “get the education,” which they do all too often by incurring a lot of debt, they’ll be graduating into an economy that doesn’t seem to want them.
You’ve probably heard lots about how workers with college degrees are faring better in this slump than those with only a high school education, which is true. But the story is far less encouraging if you focus not on middle-aged Americans with degrees but on recent graduates. Unemployment among recent graduates has soared; so has part-time work, presumably reflecting the inability of graduates to find full-time jobs. Perhaps most telling, earnings have plunged even among those graduates working full time — a sign that many have been forced to take jobs that make no use of their education.
College graduates, then, are taking it on the chin thanks to the weak economy. And research tells us that the price isn’t temporary: students who graduate into a bad economy never recover the lost ground. Instead, their earnings are depressed for life.
What the young need most of all, then, is a better job market. People like Mr. Romney claim that they have the recipe for job creation: slash taxes on corporations and the rich, slash spending on public services and the poor. But we now have plenty of evidence on how these policies actually work in a depressed economy — and they clearly destroy jobs rather than create them.
For as you look at the economic devastation in Europe, you should bear in mind that some of the countries experiencing the worst devastation have been doing everything American conservatives say we should do here. Not long ago, conservatives gushed over Ireland’s economic policies, especially its low corporate tax rate; the Heritage Foundation used to give it higher marks for “economic freedom” than any other Western nation. When things went bad, Ireland once again received lavish praise, this time for its harsh spending cuts, which were supposed to inspire confidence and lead to quick recovery.
And now, as I said, almost a third of Ireland’s young can’t find jobs.
What should we do to help America’s young? Basically, the opposite of what Mr. Romney and his friends want. We should be expanding student aid, not slashing it. And we should reverse the de facto austerity policies that are holding back the U.S. economy — the unprecedented cutbacks at the state and local level, which have been hitting education especially hard.
Yes, such a policy reversal would cost money. But refusing to spend that money is foolish and shortsighted even in purely fiscal terms. Remember, the young aren’t just America’s future; they’re the future of the tax base, too.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; wasting the minds of a whole generation is even more terrible. Let’s stop doing it.
Paul K says it better then I do.
Harvard has so much money they don't have to charge the students anything.
Taking a loan out to go to UMass now that is different.
Ms. Warren....try having to actually pay for a college education that was finance solely from student loans before you preach that there is an injustice for the student loan market. You were given an education from HARVARD and now you teach there making 300k+ per year. You dont have a problem collecting that salary from "students" who have those loans, but then say it is an injustice that the rates are so high.
Which way do you want it?