Elizabeth Warren says she is not running for president. Every politician says that. so forgive me for not taking her at her word. However, if you are looking for someone worse than Barack Obama, Liz is your woman.

Warren is knowledgable and intelligent woman. She's so well-spoken, it pains me to oppose her because, while we recognize the same problems, our conclusions are diametrically opposed. She states correctly that "Washington tilts more towards the rich and the powerful." What she refuses to see is that more government is the disease, not the cure. Her remedy is spread the infection. Progressives always believe government can be benevolent if only "they" are in charge. They are wrong most of the time, "most" being about 99.9% of the time.

Whether it’s the pseudo-war on women or ginned up crises like “climate change” and “voter suppression,” their triangulation is crass and deceptive. The latest twist is Senator Warren's proposal to reduce interest rates on many federal student loans to below 4 percent, reducing payments by thousands of dollars a year, from "savings" funded by reducing tax breaks for "millionaires." That the revenue may not cover the cost is irrelevant because the Fed can print more money. Eventually, someone will pay the shortfall, with interest, probably the same former students who thought Warren was saving them money.

Her bill is part of what the D side of the Ruling Party call their "Fair Shot" campaign, which includes raising the federal minimum wage and redundant equal-pay legislation designed to give Democrats an unfair shot at retaining more seats in November. They hope the tuition bailout, at least the debate surrounding it, will increase turnout for young people, who traditionally vote for Democrats. While the legislation does nothing to reduce joblessness, stealth inflation and the continuing economic malaise, or to fix the ridiculous Unaffordable Care Act, it distracts from numerous catastrophes here and abroad presided over by primarily-Democratic governance.

They may fail to solve problems, but Democrats are skilled at bribing special interest groups for their votes with taxpayer money, and convincing other groups, like Blacks, that Democrats are their only alternative. Democrats are always careful to say "African-Americans" before advancing policies leading to higher unemployment and poverty, particularly in the Black community. Republicans are about the same, only they cater to and con a slightly different constituency.

Ross Baker, professor of political science at Rutgers, contends Warren's student loan bill “is a perfect messaging item for the Democrats.” Rutgers University, known for discouraging debate, recently protested against Condoleezza Rice without even hearing what she had to say, based on questionable, prejudicial claims. It's almost as if they prefer an old Caucasian to a Black woman.

The federal takeover of student loans was included in the Unaffordable Care Act (Obamacare). Now we know why. Since most young people aren't working, they can be influenced by threatening to leave their loans alone. Never mind that easy loans have driven up the cost of higher education, which consistently increases more than the rate of inflation. The education lobby makes sure the money keeps flowing, explaining why universities are top campaign contributors to Democrats and Obama. Warren is right to decry bank bailouts, but she is wrong to encourage welfare for wealthy universities, like her former employer,

Harvard, with its $30 billion endowment. The latest tuition for one year is $38,891 without student aid. Throw in room, board and the full monty costs $59,950. We've seen studies showing that those with a college degree earn thousands more over their careers, on average. Those are the kind of studies that ignore cause and effect. Perhaps those destined to make more money are more inclined to attend college and graduate. Of course, even if that were true, it is no guarantee that a college degree will do anything for current graduates who cannot get jobs. Senator Warren is not promoting ways to reduce college costs, what might be called "college consumer protection."

If Warren were serious about helping those weighted down with huge college loan debt, she would propose a change to the bankruptcy laws to allow such monies to be written off, along with credit-card debt and other obligations. If she really wanted to help the middle class, she would allow taxes to be written off as well.

She said it.  

A student might consider Ms Warren a bit hypocritical. She was a Harvard professor, paid an average of $350,000 a year (just over a third of a million dollars). That was partial income because her Harvard job allowed her free time to perform lucrative consulting work and write. She won't release most of her financial details, but her fortune is estimated at around $14 million. [see: Liz Wiki for more. She claims to be a champion of the middle class, but she and her husband are firmly in the so-called 1%. As Stephen Helfer put it, "Warren now vows to go to Washington to fight for the middle class. But, like so many academics, she is more adept at feathering her own nest than truly helping Americans in need." Warren is not against privilege, she's against other people's privilege.

Recently on "Deface the Nation" for her tenth book tour, she said, "I know which side, which party, stands with American families, stands with America's middle class, who wants to give the middle class a fair shot."

Which party is that, Senator? Maybe she's not that smart after all. Both parties have been using the middle class as a piñata. The "income gap" between rich and poor has increased under the past two Democratic presidents. Her extensive association with politicians over the years must have taught her how their meddling is destroying the economy, and with it the middle class, unless she is wearing blinders.

   He stole appropriated it.

For more insight into her convoluted ruling philosophy, read my review of her book, The Two-Income Trap (by Elizabeth Warren & Arnelia Warren Tyagi).