Elizabeth Warren

Warren Wants 'Big, Structural Change' That Goes Beyond Anything Previous Democratic Administrations Have Proposed

Warren doesn't merely want to turn back the clock to the pre-Trump era. She wants to raise taxes and regulations far beyond the levels of the late Obama-Biden administration.


"What if Washington stood up for the little guys (and gals) for a change?" asks the politician, proposing to "make it harder for the big banks and crooked CEOs to play games with our economy."

"What if we could close the loopholes that allow the very wealthiest Americans to skip out on paying their fair share in taxes?" the politician asks, proposing "real action to combat the climate crisis."

"Only by working together can we return our government to the people," the politician says.

It's a telling message, not so much because of the politician who signed it—Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.)—but because of the year the direct-mail piece was sent, 2015. That was during the administration of President Obama.

Warren is campaigning for president now talking about the need for "big, structural change." Voters may interpret that as they see fit, but the 2015 direct mail piece is a sign that Warren doesn't merely want to turn back the clock to the pre-Trump era. She wants to raise taxes and regulations far beyond the levels of the late Obama-Biden administration.

Warren's presidential campaign is packed with policies that confirm that assessment. On health care, her "Medicare for All" plan would outlaw private health insurance, going beyond ObamaCare. On taxes, she has proposed an annual "wealth tax" of 2 percent per year on fortunes of more than $50 million, something Obama never publicly advocated.

The wealth tax is a particularly illuminating example because it is an attempt to solve a problem that isn't really a problem. Most large American fortunes have been created through hard work and risk-taking—not things government should seek to punish or deter. What do America's richest people do with their money once accumulated? Michael Bloomberg uses his money to advocate for causes, such as gun control, electing a Democratic Congress, and fighting climate change, that Warren generally supports. Other very rich Americans fight disease and poverty in Africa and Asia, or own companies that employ lots of Americans or provide products and services that many people voluntarily purchase. There isn't much evidence that Congress could deploy this capital better than the people who currently control it. It's not even as if having some large fortune guarantees happiness that eludes those of us who are less wealthy. Witness the sad ends of Jeffrey Epstein, Matthew Mellon, Kate Spade, and Saoirse Kennedy Hill.

The logical and factual flaws in Warren's argument are apparent from that 2015 direct-mail letter. "Middle-class economics really works—look at this!" is the label over a bar graph headlined "U.S. Economic Growth Reaches 11-Year High." Warren seems to want to credit the Obama administration and its policies for economic growth, but also to fault it for failing to stand up for little guys. Those two messages are in tension with each other.

The Warren fundraising letter bar graph showing economic growth portrays second quarter and third quarter 2014 economic growth at an annualized rate both exceeding 4 percent. But government records show real, seasonally adjusted quarterly growth at 2.7 percent in the second quarter of 2014 and 3.1% in the third quarter. If Warren is going to use growth numbers that are not inflation-adjusted or seasonally adjusted, she should have said so, because the most commonly used growth numbers do include those adjustments. And if she wants to allocate to politicians the credit for economic growth, some of it probably belongs not only to "the Obama administration" credited on the graph but to the Republican House of Representatives elected in 2010.

Former Vice President Joe Biden has started to challenge Senator Warren and her ideological allies such as Senator Bernie Sanders for running against President Obama. Conservatives and libertarians and Wall Street types might not have imagined the day when the Obama-Biden administration would be viewed as insufficiently aggressive in raising taxes and regulations. But here we are, with Obama's vice president, Joseph Biden, the main thing protecting the country from a Democratic Party formally committed to "big, structural change" of the sort Warren is pushing. If our most recent law-professor president wasn't quite left-wing enough for you, wait for the Elizabeth Warren administration.

NEXT: Attorney General Barr Does Not Approve of Your Kinder, Gentler Elected District Attorneys

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Conservatives and libertarians and Wall Street types might not have imagined the day when the Obama-Biden administration would be viewed as insufficiently aggressive in raising taxes and regulations.

    Because Obama’s income tax hike merely returned the top rate back to the 39.6% it was during the halcyon 1990’s of Bill Clinton. At the same time he cut taxes several times and cut the deficit in half.

    But now we have entered the Age of Kooky demagogues like Warren and Trump and deficits don’t matter anymore.

    1. Cutting taxes and the deficit was in half?

    2. Man, facts? Not gonna fly for the loonies in here.

      1. There were no actual facts there. Look at the cbo projections during Obama’s years. The deficits were always set to explode in the 2020 time frame due to entitlements. Obama expanded entitlements. The reduction in deficit had to do with the house GOP reigning in spending, Obama’s budgets would have kept trillion dollar spending with deficits exploding to near 2 trillion at the end of his term. It was so bad that Obama claimed 2% growth the new normal to explain away growing deficits at the end of his 8 year term.

        So no, palin was fact free like always. Hes a walking Vox talking point of misinformation.

    3. The cut the deficit in half was pure BS. The half was the TARP money that was repaid. Much of it from banks that were forced to take loans they didn’t want.

  2. The big fundamental change when wants is a socialist take over of the country.
    The first election she wins will be the last election held.

    1. I remember when they said that about Obama…

      1. It isn’t for lack of trying.
        The election of Obama was a phase shift in the D party to undisguised totalitarianism.
        It started earlier, with PC policing as the vanguard, but Obama’s election was like a signal that they’d past the tipping point.
        Just look at where they are now vs where they were 10 years ago.
        Just reflect on it for yourselves and see what conclusions you come up with.

        1. Ahh yes, Obama, would be dictator.

          Meanwhile the idiot in chief is the only one who can credibly be accused of a fascist and his cohorts lead by #moscowmitch who would prefer to govern absolutely and welcome interference from other countries so they can keep a firm grip on power.

          But yes Nardz, please speak and let the world see your idiocy in full glory about how Obama and the Democratics are going for full on totalitarianism.

          Good god, just when you thought you reached the bottom of the barrel you scrape further and get Nardz.

          1. By your name I can see your bias is worn right there on your sleeve. Your first problem is that you believe everyone here is wedded to Trump. If you believe that you’re the dumbass.

          2. Yes, Trump is a moron. But he gets partial credit for at least using the words “less government”.

            What you got?

  3. “There isn’t much evidence that Congress could…”

    Gonna stop you right there.

  4. I thought she did much better narrating ‘Maxed Out’ than she has as a Senator. Her policy has no chance of becoming law, even if she is elected, IMO. The country has seen already what happens when a big government social engineering program (PPACA) is passed into law over the objections of a sizable percentage of the electorate.

    1. A majority of Americans (53%) and of likely voters (54%) approve of the healthcare law, significantly more than the 45% who approve of the Republican tax cuts passed last year.

      The polling represents a huge shift from just after the 2016 election, when approval for Obamacare hovered in the low 40s. It marks the culmination of two years of increasing approval of the law and the highest approval rating among registered voters polled by Fox since March 2015.

      And last year’s Republican effort to repeal the healthcare law was deeply unpopular. The American Health Care Act, which Republicans failed to pass the Senate. One poll found approval for the repeal law at 17%, while others found that as little as 8% of Americans supported the passage of the new law. A study found that the Republican effort — the attempted fulfillment of a key campaign promise — was the most unpopular bill in three decades.

      Fox News

      1. So more people approve of the healthcare law after the Republicans amended it?

        1. No, people are looking at Single Payer-MFA which are true government takeovers of the health insurance system and saying Obamacare isn’t so bad after all.

          Remember, the ACA was a Heritage Foundation idea to push back Hillarycare.

          Obama’s centrism really pissed off the Michael Moore types who love Warren and Bernie.

          Obama’s tax cuts were twice as large as Donnies:


          1. I was told tax cut created deficits.

          2. Obama’s “tax cuts” were just the Bush-era cuts made permanent, taxes didn’t actually go down under Obama

          3. Heritage plan was nothing like ACA you fucking moron. Heritage plan called for slim catastrophe plans, not the comprehensive behemoths required under aca. You’re such a dishonest piece of shit.

          4. The lesser of two evils Obamacare or Single payer? Both are worse than the freedom to buy what I determine I need with no interference from arrogant busy bodies in government.

          5. Humm, maybe because the poll was stated incorrectly. Here’s a burb from The Hill this year

            “A new poll finds that about only one in 10 registered voters want the equivalent of Medicare for all if it means abolishing private health insurance plans.

            In a Hill-HarrisX survey released Thursday, 13 percent of respondents said they would prefer a health care system that covers all citizens and doesn’t allow for private plans, an approach that is sometimes referred to as “single-payer.””

            So yes, your poll never stated if private would go away.
            But hey keep your Doctor until we pass the plan right Pedo?

        2. More approved after they killed the mandate and now Trump’s crackdown on greencard/visa ever-growing medicaid expansions.

      2. Is this where I post Iglesias from Vox bragging about the media misinforming the American populace about the tax cuts to convince them it wasnt a cut?

      3. Sorry Sarah….trying to understand what point you are making.

        The law was passed on Xmas Eve 2009. In November 2010, and for the next 6 years, the Democrat party was tossed out nationally, and at the state level and municipal levels. It was a tidal wave from the electorate. The reaction to PPACA was negative, as measured by the number of Dems tossed out of office.

  5. The problem is that we’ve given our government the ability to control an immense number of aspects of our daily lives, giving politicians and officials the ability to market their services in mediating that control.
    The rich have no detrimental affect on my life. Politicians on the other hand…

  6. Warren might occasionally use the same language about “greedy corporations” and “millionaires and billionaires” that you’d expect from someone like Bernie Sanders. However, it’s important to keep in mind that one of the major things billionaires want is open borders. And every 2020 Democrat is closer to the Koch / Reason immigration position than Orange Hitler is.


  7. No doubt Pocahontas is the most dangerous of the Dems. Beware of ideologues. Kamala Rouge just wants power. Not Lizzie. She got the fervent fever of a true believer.

    1. Anyone seeking power as much as Kamala is dangerous. After all, what good is power if you don’t use it?

      1. She’s not as dangerous simply because she has no grand ambition other than being in power. She is probably closer to Bill Clinton than anything. She wouldn’t care what happened as long as she could put her name on it.

  8. “Big structural change,” = a socialist slave state with her in charge while Ms. Warren’s and her crony’s bank account swells to new heights.

  9. >>>Joseph Biden, the main thing protecting the country from a Democratic Party formally committed to “big, structural change” of the sort Warren is pushing.

    his nomination is gonna be fun.

    1. I have a feeling that if Biden or another “moderate” candidate is chosen, we’re gonna see a repeat of the 1860 election with a fracturing of the democratic party and a regional chunk of the country trying to leave once the election is lost

  10. Warren is a lying scuzzbag cvnt who claims Michael Brown was an innocent unarmed murder victim

    1. Would you expect anything resembling honesty from someone who lied about being Native American for 30 years, lied about how lying about it helped her career, and tried to pass off proof of her lies as validation ?

      1. And someone who was a Republican Wall Street consultant until her entrance into politics in 1995 when she jumped to the Dems saying that the Republicans were abandoning market-based economics in favor of social conservatism at a time when Dems were discovering “triangulation,” only to lurch to the far left along with her party when it became the politically expedient thing to do?

        The answer is ‘no.’

        1. It’s fitting that she currently occupies the very Senate seat once held by Drunken Fatass Ted Kennedy.

          1. Why was no mention of the 50th anniversary of Chappaquiddick made during the Apollo 11 celebration? The moon landing knocked that booze hound off the front pages, and may have saved him from jail.

  11. “There isn’t much evidence that Congress could deploy this capital better than the people who currently control it.”

    Deploying it isn’t the problem and wouldn’t even be possible with a wealth tax. A wealth tax means wealthy people would have to sell 2% of their stocks and bonds every year, or divert their income to match its value.

    That constant churn is one problem. Another is finding buyers. Won’t be the other wealthy people; they too will be scrambling to find buyers. That will depress the price of all stocks and bonds, decrease their wealth, decrease the ability of companies to invest in new production, and decrease the amount of tax collected.

    I can’t think of a single good outcome, other than pissing on rich people just for fun.

  12. Warren wants “big structural change” and Bernie wants “fundamental change” and Trump’s a monster for undermining our most sacred institutions. Like undermining trust in our electoral system by daring to suggest he might question the legitimacy of the 2016 election before Hillary was actually coronated. And which every Democrat now insists was an election stolen by the Russians.

    1. My first presidential election was 1992, and the first president I have memories of is Carter.

      Every single president of my lifetime ran on being a political outsider who was going to fundamentally change the system (with the possible exception of George HW, but he was 100% riding Reagan’s coattails and had abandoned pretty much his whole 1980 platform).

      Every. Single. One.

      “Fundamental Structural Change” is the rustiest cliche in American politics.

  13. Warren’s entire persona has gone off the rails. Five, maybe six years ago I could actually listen to her voice, and somewhat normal body language for more than one minute. Now, she shakes with high pitched repeats of the words billionaires, banks and health insurance companies like a deranged lunatic.

  14. Yup she’s a true believer ideologue.
    Which is why she should be kept far away from the levers of power.

  15. Stand up for the little guy? The little guy pays no income taxes now, leaving the wealthy to fund the Democrats useless socialist programs. She just wants to steal and redistribute the wealth to get elected. Once there, she would destroy the economy and America. The good news is that Americans will not elect a communist like Warren.

    1. Don’t be so sure. After all, the cvnt has a vagina, and that’s all that matters to many.

  16. Everyone does realize Warren was a registered Republican until he left the University of Texas for her gig at Harvard? At Harvard she became the moronic leftist she is today. Warren has no principles other than self promotion, amassing power and personal wealth. She may be surging in the polls but she has zero chance of being President. She is an idiot and independents will run from her like she is Typhoid Mary if she is nominee

  17. Warren Wants ‘Big, Structural Change’ That Goes Beyond Anything Previous Democratic Administrations Have Proposed

    Good, it’s about time someone since FDR advocated the we send trickle-down/supply-side Satanomics, aka Conmanitalism, to the trash heap of history with its fellow upwards wealth redistributionist to a small ruling Oligarchy ideology Communism that also failed to take human nature into account.

    Conservatives assured us that with Obama were going to get a Radical Extremist Far Left “Socialist” (or as we used to call it “a mixed-market economy”, aka Capitalism) but all we got was a moderate Republican DINO.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.