Elizabeth Warren is still being questioned about her Cherokee ‘minority status’ claims by reporters but a much bigger pattern of her ‘lies’ emerge when you look at the many things she has said or written even before becoming a Senatorial candidate. Most voters are unaware of Professor Warren’s continually debunked claims and outright lies because the media is not reporting them. For Warren to pretend that she wants more regulations and accountability in government, she sure has a lot of explaining to do regarding the false claims she has made and continues to make on a regular basis. How can voters trust anything Elizabeth Warren claims?
Professor Warren’s claims and the facts:
CLAIM: Based on family lore, Warren claimed she is part Cherokee. She ‘checked’ boxes claiming minority status throughout her career and Harvard listed her as being a ‘minority’ as well.
FACT: There’s no proof that Warren is part Cherokee. A genealogist did research and found the following interesting tidbit of information regarding Warren’s family:
… That in a follow up article about Warren’s ancestry he says that Smith Crawford’s husband, Jonathan Crawford, was a member of the Tennessee militia who rounded up Cherokees and herded them into government-built stockades in Ross’s Landing, which is now Chattanooga, Tennessee. Ross’s Landing was a point of origin for the Trail of Tears.
CLAIM: Professor Warren claims that she is not wealthy or not so wealthy that she has millions in investments.
FACT: Warren is a multi-millionaire who comfortably enjoys being in the top 1%. From Buzzfeed:
Hard to see how Warren wouldn’t be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.
She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment.
CLAIM: Warren states that President Bush’s tax cuts were only for the rich.
FACT: President Bush’s tax cuts were across the board, not just for the wealthy. The poor actually paid less and the wealthy paid a larger percentage of overall taxes in this country. From Red State:
Under George W. Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.
CLAIM: In the same speech as above, Professor Warren made the following statement: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody” and added that “…part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay it forward for the next kid who comes along.”
FACT: The rich already pay the majority of taxes as proven above and it is state and local governments that pay the majority for education, fire, maintenance of roads and police. From International Liberty:
She [Warren] specifically pointed out that successful people depend on government-provided “public goods” such as roads, police, and education.
Given that the government is doing a terrible job with education, spending huge amounts of money for rather mediocre results, that was probably a foolish addition to her list. Regardless, she’s basically making a point that public goods benefit everybody. And she would like us to think that the “rich” benefit more than the rest of us, so they should pay more.
I had a couple of reactions when this story broke.
1. The rich already do pay a lot more, with the top 10 percent shouldering about 70 percent of the income tax burden. At what point would Ms. Warren be satisfied?
2. If you want a system where people pay proportionately more for public goods, isn’t that an argument for a simple and fair flat tax?
3. People get rich by providing value to the rest of us. Is it wise to subject those people to disproportionate tax penalties when that may discourage them from utilizing their talents?
4. If some people get rich illegitimately because of special handouts and subsidies from politicians, isn’t the solution to get rid of the bad programs rather than indiscriminately penalize all high-income households?
Voters already believe that lying is ‘par for the course’ with politicians but Elizabeth Warren really takes the cake. One of the problems is her record of making false claims for many years. Listed here are just a few examples (more will be in Part II- the list is long). Warren also bases her political ideology and ideas about growing government on her false claims. Either she is willfully ignorant or she actually believes the lies that she continually perpetrates to further her political career and far left wing progressive ideology. Regardless of why she continues to make false claims, voters should think twice before believing anything she says.
Part II of this series is here.