Senator Warren is already more bipartisan and more effective than Scott Brown ever was

[MannyGoldstein]

From our local (and very insightful) Liberal site, Blue Mass Group:

Three months in, Senator Warren is already more bipartisan and more effective than Scott Brown ever was

Scott Brown sure did talk a great game about being Mr. Bipartisan, didn’t he? But if you stop to think about it, he was a remarkably ineffective Senator. His widely-noticed penchant for waiting until the last possible second to make up his mind on anything deprived him of the ability to have much significant influence on important legislation. Perhaps the exception to that is the Dodd-Frank bill, which he voted for only after weakening it for the benefit of some of the biggest financial institutions around. Well, bravo.

...

Compare that to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s early track record. Of course, she has already made national headlines for her aggressive questioning of bank regulators (including some within the Obama administration) and of folks opposed to raising the minimum wage (some videos of those hearings have become YouTube sensations garnering hundreds of thousands of views; one has almost hit a million). But you know what else she’s done? She did this:

The U.S. Senate today passed a bipartisan amendment introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to help provide critical disaster relief funds for fishermen. The amendment was the first introduced and passed by Senator Warren since she took office in January.

...

Also, earlier this month, Warren joined forces with very conservative Senators Corker (R-TN) and Vitter (R-LA) (along with Mark Warner (D-VA)) to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Go get 'em!

[mother earth]

1. Elizabeth Warren is incredible, a true champion of "we the people". K & R!

[unrepentant progress]

2. So why did your champion of the people vote to repeal the Estate Tax?

Just another lying pol I think.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00066

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Interesting. Do you have the text of the amendment? nt

[unrepentant progress]

8. Sorry, no.

All I can find is the purpose: "To repeal or reduce the estate tax, but only if done in a fiscally responsible way."

I suppose it depends on how you define "fiscally responsible." I suppose the regressives in control of our country have an interesting way of looking at that.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. I think the text might matter.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. I emailed Senator Warren (I'm a MA resident) and asked her

I'll let you know what she comes back with.

[Sirveri]

31. I do, it's a poison pill to stop an estate tax repeal.

SA 693. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 8, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2014, revising the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2013, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023; as follows:

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. 3__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE REPEAL OR REDUCTION OF THE ESTATE TAX.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to the repeal or reduction of the estate tax, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

So basically they can repeal the estate tax, but only if they do it in a revenue neutral way. Which they can't do unless they cut social welfare programs, the majority of which are wildly popular, or if they cut the military (in which case why should we care?)

I still don't like the idea of cutting the estate tax at all, but we'd at least get them on the record as smashing programs that their constituents actually like.

[ZombieHorde]

4. Fair question.

I would like to hear her explanation for that vote.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

ps: putting down Warren on a Democratic message board for your first post seems bit trollish. I'm not offended, and I think your point is fair, but it looks bad.

[unrepentant progress]

5. Thanks

I've been here before, but thought it was time for a fresh start. Not trying to troll, just incredibly frustrated and disappointed over this.

[uppityperson]

6. Who were you before? Welcome back.

[unrepentant progress]

10. That would be telling ;-)

Suffice it to say, I was loved and reviled and ignored. Thanks!

[uppityperson]

11. FWIW, here is Skinner's take.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1259455

[unrepentant progress]

13. Fear not, cyberdenizen.

I am not undead, merely transported of soul to a fresh vessel.

[uppityperson]

14. Not a zombie but a sock? Huh.

[unrepentant progress]

16. Neither nor

A sock is worn, unless it can't be darned, and then it is discarded. I am who I am, but not who you might think, and here I be with eyes anew.

[William769]

17. Welcome back.

Time will tell.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

29. .

[uppityperson]

18. I have thought about doing that also

esp after DTG took a dislike to me.

[rhett o rick]

22. I dont know who you are or were and dont care. But it is cruel to tease.

They miss their meta. But they will be watching.

[rhett o rick]

20. Exactly. Skinner made it clear that he didnt "want to empower the zombie hunters, troll hunters, and

witch hunters on this site. They can be worse than the zombies, trolls, and witches."

[Ms. Toad]

21. Not only that, but when someone asked about a name change -

Here is his response:

Unfortunately we have no plans to offer a username amnesty.
The only way to change usernames is to create a new account.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1259723

[rhett o rick]

23. The Neighborhood Watchers will be keeping an eye on him.

They miss their meta.

[Ms. Toad]

24. To be fair,

Some of the neighborhood watchers are formally serving DU in the role of neighborhood watcher: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10132436

And many zombies/sockpuppets/and similar multiple incarnations of the dead or not so dead are malicious intruders - and keeping them out is part of the job description.

[rhett o rick]

26. I fully support MIRT but consider that they are more closely like police and not a NeighborhoodWatch

They are authorized to patrol and take action unlike the Neighborhood Watchers that are self appointed like Zimmerman. Often they are not content with the actions of the police and juries and want to take actions into their own hands.

We have the alert/jury system and the MIRT and IMHO no need for vigilante actions.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

28. Nice username, not trolling guy.

[unrepentant progress]

30. Thank you

Glad to see that welcoming DU spirit.

[mother earth]

7. I'd like more info on this as well. So far, she has been a champion of the people, until proven

otherwise, I will continue to applaud her & continue to be "unrepentant".

As stated, one of two posts & both only on EW group, you certainly aren't a supporter, more likely...trolling.

[unrepentant progress]

12. "As stated, one of two posts & both only on EW group, you certainly aren't a supporter, more likely.

Everyone has to start somewhere. Thanks for the welcome, such as it is.

[mother earth]

15. Only seeking clarity, it's one thing to converse, quite another to be trolled. I suspect there's

more to her vote and the issue at hand that is not immediately available. None here follow blindly, we aren't lockstep with talking points. DU pride is fact based, not party affiliated.

[valerief]

9. Wrong. He was a very effective senator.

For the 1%.

[BlueStreak]

27. Principled compromises

And this was what Teddy did so many times.

You start with core principles. That's the thing 90% of the Beltway Dems just don't get. You start with those principles and then you form alliances that help you move in that direction, understanding that you won't get there all in one step.

To begin with core principles, you must HAVE core principles. Therein lies the rub. For most of today's Dems, I'm afraid the only core principle is getting reelected.