Andrew Sorkin Wants To Know Why Elizabeth Warren Doesn't Understand That A Bankster Who Is a Protégé Of George Plimpton Is A Different Breed Of Bankster

Antonio Weiss with Lazard Frères chairman Michel David-Weill at the Frick Collection Autumn Dinner (2013), proof that banksters appreciate art and should run the world

Saturday we looked at the reasons why Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are opposing President Obama's nomination of multimillionaire bankster Antonio Weiss for a cush position as a Treasury Under Secretary. Progressives would like Obama to stop nominating anti-social Wall Street criminals to government positions-- i.e., people like Weiss. Andrew Ross Sorkin, a NY Times columnist and CNBC host (for the reactionary Wall Street-dominated Squawk Box), and a unabashed Wall Street suck-up, disagrees and attacked Warren in his Dealbook column Monday. Sorkin was all weepy over how meanies like Warren are making it harder for Wall Street sociopaths like Weiss to take on government jobs that are supposed to protect consumers and society from Wall Street excesses.

Recollect Warren explaining that "neither [Weiss'] background nor his professional experience makes him qualified to oversee consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the Treasury. As someone who has spent my career focused on domestic economic issues, including a stint of my own at the Treasury Department, I know how important these issues are and how much the people in Treasury can shape policies. I also know that there are a lot of people who have spent their careers focused on these issues, and Weiss isn’t one of them." Sorkin had a fit, but his repulsive elitist arguments were... at best, bizarre. Weiss, he writes-- I'm not making this up-- "is hardly the prototypical banker. He is a protégé of the writer and editor George Plimpton and is the publisher of the Paris Review, the literary magazine, giving it financial support it for years to keep it alive." Well, nevermind; make him Treasury Secretary.

Somehow, though, Sorkin, who grew up the pampered and spoiled brat of millionaires, doesn't have much to say about how the George Plimpton protégé would respond to the financial crisis brought on by people just like him and how it impacts the lives of a class of people he never rubs shoulders with-- the 99%, at least some of whom have never read a single page of the Paris Review. We're going to leave Dodd-Frank in his hands while the GOP is determined to gut it? And there's more: "He has been a staunch supporter-- and campaign donation bundler-- for President Obama." That's not a disqualification in Sorkin's mind; it's an attribute.

Ms. Warren’s other main objection is simply that Mr. Weiss has worked on Wall Street, which she seems to believe disqualifies him based on symbolism alone.

“Nor must every government official come from the financial sector; executives from other business areas, lawyers who have practiced in a wide range of fields, academics, financial advisers, nonprofit employees, think-tank researchers and people with experience elsewhere in government have deep wells of knowledge,” she wrote, suggesting someone with such a background would be a better candidate than Mr. Weiss.

That is true-- but perhaps for a different role.

The role Mr. Weiss has been nominated for is largely responsible for managing the country’s $12.9 trillion debt at a time when the Federal Reserve is ending its stimulus. The job requires deep experience in the capital markets and global relationships. This is not a job for a local lawyer or research group executive.

To put this in context, according to Politico, if the interest on the securities the Treasury sells was just 20 basis points higher for a year because of uncertainty or mismanagement, it would cost taxpayers $32 billion-- more than it would cost to fund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for 50 years. The bureau was, of course, inspired by Ms. Warren.

It is true that Mr. Weiss doesn’t have a lot of experience in the regulatory arena, and at least part of the role he is nominated for involves carrying out the remaining parts of the Dodd-Frank overhaul law. It is also true that Mr. Weiss, if confirmed, will be the beneficiary of a policy at Lazard that vests his unvested shares-- some $20 million in stock and deferred compensation-- by taking a government job. That creates its own conflicts.

Ms. Warren might be more persuasive if she focused on those issues.

Sadly, Ms. Warren’s denunciation of Mr. Weiss is a reason many talented people in the private sector are unwilling to take on government roles. They worry that, like Mr. Weiss, they will be attacked by what seems like just another campaign talking point.

Oh, yes, so sad... because as everyone knows, our government isn't already completely dominated with self-serving Wall Street shysters, although not always ones who are protégés of George Plimpton... and Lord knows we need more of those... dismantling consumer protections. Sorkin didn't comment on Bernie Sanders' opposition to Weiss-- but I doubt Sorkin even bothers to pay any attention to anything Bernie says. I know DWT readers do. Enjoy: