RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Obama team right for job



Toolbox

Published: January 8, 2009

President-elect Obama has had a rough time recently with several of his choices for positions in his administration. So it may be timely to reaffirm several solid choices he has made, which came in for rather strong criticism in a recent (Dec. 31) letter to the Herald by Mr. K.M. Forlie. Mr Forlie's letter opens with "I'm outraged that President-elect Obama has appointed Tim Geithner as treasury secretary and Larry Summers as his chief economic adviser." Because, as Mr. Forlie goes on to explain, Messrs. Geithner and Summers were "central players in crafting the lax regulatory policies ... that have contributed to the economic situation we now find ourselves in."

In support of this proposition, he quotes a Naomi Klein "Democracy Now!" interview, which calls for "reregulating exactly what Larry Summers and Tim Geithner deregulated under the Clinton administration." I set out below the reasons I believe Mr Forlie's complaint — and thus his call for withdrawal of the appointments — to be unjustified and erroneous.

First, some necessary background. Deregulation of the financial markets — which I completely agree has been a disaster — took place over a period of more than a decade (roughly, mid-1980s to 1999), and included a number of agencies and individuals. Any list of prime deregulators would have to include Alan Greenspan (Federal Reserve Board chairman, 1987-2006) and Sen. Phil Gramm (free-market enthusiast and an author of the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, which finally repealed Glass-Steagall.) I cannot speak to the specific role of the Treasury Department in this extensive deregulation process, but can suggest a likely scenario from personal experience (Disclosure: I was an international economist at the U.S. Treasury Department for 28 years, 1968-1996; Tim Geithner, then deputy assistant secretary for international affairs — was my boss for my last couple of years prior to my retirement.)

First, Robert Rubin — who came to Treasury with an extensive Wall Street background and contacts — would have had the deciding word on Treasury positions regarding such important policy matters as financial (de)regulation during his tenure as secretary of the treasury (January 1995 to July 1999). (Kevin Phillips, among other knowledgeable observers, has identified then-Secretary Rubin as a prime exponent of financial deregulation during his tenure as treasury secretary.)

So while Larry Summers was deputy secretary of the treasury for several years before succeeding Rubin as secretary in mid-1999, he had neither the Wall Street contacts nor the clout of Mr. Rubin when it came to financial market policymaking. He may have been complicit in Treasury's role in the process, but it is hard to assign him a leadership role. The case for Tim Geithner as demon deregulator is even more tenuous. His entire Treasury career was in international affairs, including deputy, then assistant secretary, then under secretary. Given the organization and resulting division of labor within Treasury — as well as time constraints — the demands of his various international affairs portfolio(s) would have made it virtually impossible for him to be involved in any meaningful way in matters regarding deregulation of the domestic financial services industry.

By November 2003, when Tim Geithner became president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — where he was very much involved with the financial service sector — the deregulatory horse was well and truly out of the barn. So inclusion of Tim Geithner in any list of deregulators is purest guilt by association.

I will close by noting that both Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are fully representative of the broad, deep talent pool Mr. Obama has assembled to advise him and to serve in his Cabinet — as is Paul Volcker, one of the truly great public servants of his generation, recently appointed as head of Mr. Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. (Another personal note: Paul Volcker was under secretary of the treasury for monetary affairs when I joined the Treasury staff in 1968, fresh out of graduate school. I have never seen a more able public official; his subsequent record, notably as Federal Reserve chairman, 1979-87, simply reinforces this impression.) All three are highly intelligent, experienced in the ways of both Washington and Wall Street, and will arrive on the job ready to hit the ground running. Given the severity of the economic situation, this ability to get down to business without any break-in period will be invaluable in putting the necessary programs and stimulus measures in place with maximum impact and minimum delay. Strength to their arms!

DAVID J. KLOCK

Wallingford








READER COMMENTS


None none

You are geniune FREE LOADER.. Enjoy. Someone else is working so you can sit back and enjoy..
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 1:30 pm EST

report this comment



Arnie

Yes, I do receive food stamps and help with my health insurance. The money I save every month from not having to use my own money I'm putting into the new gargoyle for the rooftop of our villa in France and I hired a wonderfull tax lawyer to dodge our way out of paying our fair share in taxes.

Thank god Arnie is a dying breed. A breed that puts down poor people all the while hiring expensive lawyers to cheat his way out of paying his fair share in taxes.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Jan 10, 2009, 6:14 am EST

report this comment



Comy

Well another absolutely BRILLANT post by the one and only, Comfy. I bet Comfy, you thought that one up all by yourself as well. ROFLMAO Comfy is a real clown.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 7:00 pm EST

report this comment



Arnie is right, None None, it is much better to live on welfare than to be in the top 1%.
Those poor wealthy people have it so hard. If I were in the top 1%, I would definitely give it all up so that I could have the luxury of living off the state. Wouldn't you? Be honest now!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 6:53 pm EST

report this comment



None None

You are preaching Marxism and you do so with Pride. You justify another man's sweat to pay your way. Get off your lazy a-- and go earn your own fortune. You have as much of a chance as anyone else, don't believe for a second that you are entitled to the harvest from another man's toil. Earn it yourself.
By the way it doesn't matter if it is 60% 40 % or whatever, the fact is that they pay more in taxes than the entire bottom 90%, that is after all what the topic was about, Having the Wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. I think they pay more than their fair share and by the way, just to confuse youmore, the top 1% are earners over $350,000, so the if you wanted to include the top 10% with a cut off of about $100,000, you would find that the top 10% pay over 98% of the entire tax burden. So Buckwheat, get a life and quit your bit'hin'.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 6:52 pm EST

report this comment



Envy my fanny.

Just shut up and pay your fair share.

BTW...your figures should say.....a total of 1% of the population has over 60% of the wealth, and they can spread that around to the other 99% of the population.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 6:07 pm EST

report this comment



The Top Wealthiest 1% of the All Taxpayers pay more in tax than the bottom 90% of the taxpayers. How can you even remotely accuse them of not paying their share and they don't even enjoy the programs that their money pays for.

Your envy is clouding your judgement.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 5:58 pm EST

report this comment



I see NOTHING wrong with taking more money from the rich and giving it to the less fortunate.

I guess the only people to complain about it are the super rich.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 4:20 pm EST

report this comment



"M W can't even define Socialism, never mind recognizing an actual Socialist.
Socialism at its finest ? Where ? Be specific. The man hasn't even been sworn into office yet you fool. Oh and M W, if you hadn't noticed, the Bush Fascists just looted the U.S. Treasury. They still have about 12 days left to fill up their wheel barrows. And what is this "if we continue to follow" baloney ? You are just repeating the right wing talking points issued by Limbaugh et al. Come back to this forum when you have an original thought, ok ? Not a minute sooner either." - Christian Essene

I debated whehter or not to even reply to your comment. You called me stupid, a fool, ignorant, and a lemming. It's safe to say that no amount of defense of my position would matter much to you. You seem to have pretty much written me off as some one incapable of debating with you.

So what if I get my information from Limbaugh? Does that really preclude me from participating in a discussion on the Rutland Herald Web Site? Where do you get your news?

Just because I blast Obama for his socialist policies does not mean that I find no fault with Republicans when they display the same tendencies. The massive entitlements that we have as a nation are a problem (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) and will get worse the more goverment "stimulates" the economy.
-- Posted by M W on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 1:50 pm EST

report this comment



"Ah, yes, "socialism." None of that proposed by the Bushies, right? Only, what, $700 billion to nationalize the banking and financial components of the economy. Nothing significant there when the largess of socialism goes to the very people who put us into this mess. Ha! So much for the Conservative approach of "give the money to the rich guys; they'll know how to handle it." - Notta Bushman

Oh, I see...because I called Obama a socialist, I must be a Bush supporter? Or maybe, because I called Obama and his team a socialist, I must just be stupid.

It happens that I am a Bush supporter that disagrees with most of his domestic policies. Including his support for the $700 Billion "bailout". Never mind that it is government intervention in the mortgage industries that led us to this mess in the first place (led mostly by Democrats). Of course, that is exactly my point: government intervention is bad (simplified to a single adjective for convenience sake).

As for "giving money to the rich guy", I don't support that either. I support letting people keep the money that they earn. If there must be an income tax at all, then it should be levied the same on everyone (i.e. flat tax).
-- Posted by M W on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 1:42 pm EST

report this comment



I do know that the people PAY IN to Social Security and Medicare and the money is theirs to beging with and the Government is merely the housekeeper. During their Housekeeping they have taken it upon themselves to misuse the funds and hand out to welfare and not just the qualified, so Yes, thanks to the Dems the programs reek with Socialistic overtones.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:26 am EST

report this comment



None None

You need to research the Social Security Act of 1935. It is not a Socialistic Program, the Dems seem to think it is a Tax and not an Insurance and have taken money from it to balance the budgets etc and have even decided that Illegals who have never paid in are entitled to our money. You reall need to research a little prior to throwing accusations that better lay with Democrats and not the Republicans. Actually Bush trie dto get a Bill sponsored in the Congress to make Social Security Off limits to the Government, the Dems have stalled it for 8 years.


As far as the other Programs you mentioned, I am not versed enough in them to give you a debate.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:23 am EST

report this comment



Christian and Notta

Here is info just for the $700 Billion Bailout and it was Sponsored by Democrats, I'll let you two research the $300 Billion Bailout from July and the $25 Billion in Sept and Pelosi has offered another $350 billion if needed and Obama has pledged a bold $1 trillion more if needed, seems they are all Democrats with the, as you say, Wheelbarrels.

http://www.freedomtalks.org/2008/10/03/who-voted-for-the-wall-street-bailout/

Who voted for the Wall Street Bailout $700 Billion?

H R 1424 YEA-AND-NAY 3-Oct-2008 1:22 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments
BILL TITLE: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Democratic 172 aye 63 nay
Republican 91 aye 108 nay

TOTALS 263 aye 171 nay


http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/10/2/the-senate-bailout-bill-how-they-voted.html
The Senate Bailout Bill: How They Voted
October 02, 2008 05:03 PM ET
The Senate on Wednesday voted 74-25 to pass the $700 billion financial bailout bill. Here's a look at how the senators voted:
From the Associated Press:
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to approve the package and a "no" vote was a vote against it.
Voting "yes" were 39 Democrats, 34 Republicans and 1 independent.
Voting "no" were 9 Democrats, 15 Republicans and 1 independent.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:10 am EST

report this comment



We already live in a socialist society.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Farm Aid etc. are all socialist programs.

If people are complaining that we will become a "socialist society" and are receiving Social Security or Medicare, you are more than welcome to send it back to the government. Heck I'll even provide ya with a self-addressed stamped envelope.

It's kinda funny the people complaining we will become "socialists" are the same people receiving SS and/or Medicare.
-- Posted by None None on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 11:05 am EST

report this comment



Notta

The $300 Billion, the $700 Billion, the 25 Billion and the proposed extra $1 trillion dollar bailouts, ALL sponsored by Democrats and all voted for by a 2 to one margin over the Republicans. How can you possibly blame Bush for the $700? It was all Democrats, check your resources. Bush may have asked but the Congress had to write it, propose it, pass it at the House and pass it at the Senate in order for the Executive branch to get it. My kid asked for a million bucks once. Nice try Notta, but it is the Democrats you should be pointing fingers at, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Obama himself.

Obama doesn't know his left foot from his right foot, he hated Hillary's foriegn Policy when she was running against him and now he chose her. He is a little boy in a Candy Store who is just grabbing at everything. He hasn't even been in Office yet, hasn't met with the Experts and yet he feels he knows the answers, yup! a real winner. Two years folks, you better hope the Democrats don't mess it up any further as they have since they took Majority.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Fri, Jan 9, 2009, 6:22 am EST

report this comment



M W can't even define Socialism, never mind recognizing an actual Socialist.
Socialism at its finest ? Where ? Be specific. The man hasn't even been sworn into office yet you fool. Oh and M W, if you hadn't noticed, the Bush Fascists just looted the U.S. Treasury. They still have about 12 days left to fill up their wheel barrows. And what is this "if we continue to follow" baloney ? You are just repeating the right wing talking points issued by Limbaugh et al. Come back to this forum when you have an original thought, ok ? Not a minute sooner either.
-- Posted by Christian Essene on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, 1:38 pm EST

report this comment



Ah, yes, "socialism." None of that proposed by the Bushies, right? Only, what, $700 billion to nationalize the banking and financial components of the economy. Nothing significant there when the largess of socialism goes to the very people who put us into this mess. Ha! So much for the Conservative approach of "give the money to the rich guys; they'll know how to handle it."
-- Posted by Notta Bushman on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, 10:05 am EST

report this comment



Obama's Team isn't the problem. Obama's philosophy is the problem.

The goal of his economic vision is to increase the role of government beyond the point of no return. It's socialism at it's finest. It will break the backs of the average taxpayer. It will stifle growth in every sector of the economy.

The economic condition of our country isn't "severe" yet. It will become more severe than you can imagine if we continue to follow the misguided policies of Obama and the other socialists on his economic team.
-- Posted by M W on Thu, Jan 8, 2009, 8:45 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout