Letter to the Editor: Warren Intern Says Candidate is 'For the People'

Hamilton resident Connor Schmidt is a summer intern for the Elizabeth Warren for Senate campaign and writes to express his support.

To the Editor:

This summer, it has been my pleasure to work as an intern with the Elizabeth Warren campaign for U.S. Senate. As I reflect on my time growing up in Hamilton, I become more and more sure of my support for her.

Warren is a candidate who wants to invest in the middle class, as she is a strong advocate for spending on infrastructure, technology, and education. I would not be the person I am without the fantastic and Elizabeth Warren truly wants to give everyone similar opportunities. 

Warren is a candidate for the people, backed by those looking to change the system in Washington, not by lobbyists or big banks. She has proven capable of breaking through the Washington gridlock, as she did with her creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an advocacy group that helps with student loans, credit cards and mortgages.

It is my firm belief that Elizabeth Warren is right for both Hamilton-Wenham and for Massachusetts because, as she says, “we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people.”

Thank you,

Connor Schmidt


Chase Schaub July 06, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Connor, I'm sad to see you were brainwashed by Prof. Warren. She is an extremist and a socialist unwilling to work with anyone to end gridlock. She will simply worsen the problem. Brown is the proven independent voice for the people. She received her opportunities by lying about her ancestry .
Michelle Bailey July 06, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Connor, what a great experience to see first hand how the civics you study in school actually plays out in real life...it's not as pretty, but beats the alternative by a mile.
Sara Beneke July 07, 2012 at 12:05 AM
I am glad you are having a good experience, but I would NEVER vote for her.
Jay Burnham July 07, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Anonymous...at least Connor is willing to stand behind and take responsibility for his words. You, on the other hand, are a coward spewing diatribe whose words are especially valueless by virtue of your anonymity. Bravo to you, Connor. Thank you for sharing openly and honestly.
Paul J July 07, 2012 at 03:02 PM
It is sad that so many liberals drink the Kool-Aid at the trough and "Anonymous" is correct. Prof. Warren is an extremist and a socialist unwilling to work with anyone to end gridlock. She received her opportunities by lying about her ancestry. It would appear that Tierney also is in it up to his neck. Why is it that Liberals try to lay blame on the otherside....It is time to remove the liberals who just want to spend our tax dollars to by votes from the weak minded.
Tracy July 07, 2012 at 03:31 PM
Elizabeth Warren wrote a book called The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke. It could be my family's autobiography, and that's why I'm voting for her. P.S. Jay, thank you for your reasonable words.
Ron Powell July 07, 2012 at 03:56 PM
Connor seems like a smart guy, and he did a fine job of explaining why he supports his candidate. I am sure that working as an intern for Elizabeth Warren's Senate Campaign will be an experience that he will remember for the rest of his life. I wish him success. Personally, I think that it is scandalous that a candidate who argues that high income earners have a social obligation to give away more of their earnings, would, as a high wage earner herself, give only 3.2 percent of her earnings to various charities. It doesn't seem that she is as personally interested in truly helping the middle class as she is in spending other people's money through an expanded federal government.
Jay Burnham July 07, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Rule of Engagement for 2012 Political Engagement: If you voted for George W. Bush twice, don't give political advice. What president had the largest surplus and best record in reducing the deficit?...President Bill Clinton. His presidency had a $230 BILLION SURPLUS in 2000, which was Bill Clinton's third year of paying down the federal deficit. When President Barack Obama walked into the oval office, a $1.2 TRILLION DEFICIT was waiting for him there, a gift and legacy from President George W. Bush.
Paul J July 08, 2012 at 09:26 PM
First Jay, the so called surplus you claim was left by Bill Clinton was on paper only and not reality. Second, thanks to the Liberals controlling both the House and Senate the spending was on their shoulders not Bush. You had better go back and check your facts and the records. Typical liberal, say it again and again and you think it is the truth. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
Jay Burnham July 08, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Dear Paul...That is what is known as PROJECTION. A classic example, I must say.
Paul J July 08, 2012 at 10:58 PM
That’s the first step and I am glad you are aware of your problem Jay, So are you being treated for the malady?
Paul J July 09, 2012 at 06:36 AM
By the way Jay, to help you on the to recovery, the facts are as follows: Clinton ran deficits thought all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term. Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb. How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus. For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed $152.3B from Social Security $30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund $18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund $15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund $9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund $8.2B from Military Retirement Fund $3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds $1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund $7.0B from others Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit. ($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit). If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down. The national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration. Love the liberal twisting of numbers.
Anne Sweeney July 09, 2012 at 06:51 AM
Jay Burnham July 09, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Paul J...You toss around the words "deficit" and "debt" as if they are the same thing. they are not. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year. It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained spending restraints. Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased. Those are the facts. Ever notice that if a Democratic president does well, Republicans insist it's either not true or that it was a Republican Congress that caused the benefit? Likewise, if a Republican president does not do well, it the fault of a Democratic congress? Talk about Kool-Aid!
Ron Powell July 10, 2012 at 03:21 AM
Another unanswerable argument. #winning
Jim Smith July 11, 2012 at 04:23 AM
@Ron, The Public sector is killing the private sector ? The state, Federal, Local, Country, along with many other agencies are hiring more than the private sector. Yet all the taxes come from the private sector in a thriving economy. How do we resolve this conundrum ? Everyone wants the retirement age to go up, but the private sector discriminates based upon age ? What will Elizabeth Warren do to enforce equal protection in hiring practices. Only the state, local and federal government will hire sixty year olds ?
Anne Sweeney July 11, 2012 at 04:45 AM
Connor, unlike Michelle, I am not that obsequious. So, I'll ask some questions based upon what you stated: Warren is a candidate who wants to invest in the middle class, as she is a strong advocate for spending on infrastructure, technology, and education. I would not be the person I am without the fantastic Hamilton-Wenham schools and Elizabeth Warren truly wants to give everyone similar opportunities. How do I know your middle class definition is entirely different than my own. I barely make a living to afford Hamilton, I have an average job, with a $35,000.00 per year salary. You people talk about $250,000.00 per year as if people actually make that type of money. I don't really know if you can identify with us little people. Like Romney and the rest of the elitists running for office, how will you make things better for my income group ? You want to take away my mortgage and real estate tax deduction. If I am lucky enough to have a rich uncle or family, you want to tax my inheritance so that the government benefits from my families hard work throughout their lifetime. How will you protect the interests of the "Lower Middle Class" ? I really don't think Mitt Romney, Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama and the rest of the elitists care about me ? Change my mind ?
Jeff Stinson August 06, 2012 at 03:58 AM
Connor, it seems you have hit a "live one". Welcome to the world of politics! It is a fun ride. Enjoy. As for the discussion here - Connor is simply expressing his viewpoint. I suggest that if any of you feel so strongly about the subject then you should send Bobby Gates your own Letters to the Editor in support of your candidate. I only ask that you keep it somewhat civil as to ensure that our democracy remains intact. I'd hate for the Brits to reassume control over our land after the Olympics because of some crazy internet civil war.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »