Steve Clemons: "No Economic Team of Rivals On Obama Staff: Rubin's Manic Neoliberals Dominate"

[mod mom]

FRIGHTENING!

Steve Clemons-Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation
Posted January 28, 2009 | 03:27 PM (EST)

No Economic Team of Rivals On Obama Staff: Rubin's Manic Neoliberals Dominate

The deep ideological divide that is emerging in the economics profession between those who worried about manic neoliberalism and Bob Rubin-style turbo-charged tilts towards an increasing unregulated finance industry is not hitting the Obama administration - because it is only hiring one side of that divide.

As best I can tell Obama is stacking his team with those who George Soros disdainfully calls "market fundamentalists."

Liaquat Ahmed metaphorically profiles the Rubin-led financial ideologues in his Depression-focused new book, The Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World.

-snip

Obama and Rahm Emanuel have hired a group of people who are going to make the rich stay rich -- and who are not designed to really change things for the middle class or the struggling lower end.

-snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/no-economic-team-of-rival_b_161955.html

[bertman]

1. Recommend. I knew this already but I needed it stuck in my head once again--like a

red-hot knitting needle.

Three words: DLC

[mod mom]

3. Just Days after Repeal of Glass/Steagall, Rubin got top job at Citigroup-coincidence?

Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"

-snip

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

[terisan]

8. The corrupt have been put in charge. nt

[mod mom]

9. they've been in charge for 28 years but didn't we vote for CHANGE?

[truedelphi]

25. Change, like hope is rather ephemeral.

You and I wanted change that would really put the Big Stink-o of the Big Stinkers off the playing field.

Apparently Obama had other ideas. Or maybe he is naive. I don't know.

But it doesn't matter. People not tied into the Demcoratic side of the arena were hoping for real change. I use my next door neighbor as a barometer. He is an independent voter, who choose Obama in 2009 becuase "maybe the guy was as smart as he looked."

He just told me, "They (ie Obama and his "team") are enabling the rich the same as Bush did."

Different names, same game.

Oh well. To quote Vonnegut, and "So it goes..."

[MADem]

4. Oh, DLC my ass. Obama is in charge. He's not being controlled by nameless people

within a three letter subparty agency headed by a guy who LOST his Senate run to a douchebag who is nicknamed CORKY.

I never fail to be astounded by the conspiracy theorists who, when Obama does something they don't like, automatically find someone else to blame.

Obama is the President. He makes the calls. He's large and in charge. His economic team is reflective of HIS wishes, not Harold Ford's. He's not a wuss, he's not a weakling, he's not stupid and he's not clueless.

These are HIS decisions. Get used to it.

Sheesh.

[mmonk]

6. Then what are his wishes and these people are far from nameless

unless he has a different set of people hiding from view?

[MADem]

11. Well, maybe he DOES have someone hiding behind the curtain....

unlikely though that scenario is.

If he does, he's hardly likely to tell us about it, now, is he?

However, I think his economic team is the team he put together to prosecute his economic policy. He likes these people and trusts their perspective. If they propose something he does not like, he'll surely tell them to go back and try again.

[mmonk]

13. Well its hard to change course with the people that brought you so to speak.

There's nothing I can do about it though. Cross my fingers they don't keep trying the same things. I and many others are really starting to hurt.

[girl gone mad]

16. The fact that he trusts their perspective..

should scare the hell out of anyone who cares about the middle class.

[truedelphi]

26. I have been scared ever since I heard that his economic team were

Going to be Geithner, Rubin and Summers. Way back in late November.

Well so much for the middle class having any sort of shot at anything.

[SammyWinstonJack]

46. Why isn't he answerable to us? He works for us. We have a right to know what he has in store

for us. After 8 yrs of bu$hit, I WANT TO KNOW THE HELL IS GOING ON!

Hope and Change is mostly crap without oversight by We The People!

[depakid]

18. Hardly conspiracy theory at all

and HIS decisions (if he follows the advice of these folks- and continues down the same dysfunctional policy path) WILL RESULT in Obama being a one term president.

And- in that event, rightly so.

[MADem]

33. Yes, it IS a conspiracy theory, depakid. And it's a lousily articulated and nonsensical one, too.

People are acting all ....SHOCKED!!!!!..... that Obama is behaving in precisely the way he has said he would behave, since the primaries. Because they can't get past their own cognitive dissonance (they voted for a mythical progressive, and they got the centrist that he said he was) they're blaming shadowy villains from the Dee El Cee. It's asinine.

Obama has not changed one iota since he found his footing on the national stage. Problem was, no one listened to the stuff he was saying in between the Hope/Change/Believe riffs. Everyone put their own ideas on the guy and pretended that their ideas were his. They chose not to listen to what he was saying because they were swooning over "Hope/Change/Believe," the fact that he was young, and the fact that at long last, someone who wasn't an old white guy was running for office and "firing up" the electorate. I always thought there was little daylight between Obama and Clinton, save the dogwhistle with McClurkin and a lack of national experience on Obama's part. His path thus far is unsurprising to me, and I can't believe how many people here are "shocked, shocked" at the choices he's been making.

Was no one listening to his stump speeches, interviews and the debates? No one? If they were, they wouldn't be blaming the "Dee El Cee" for Obama's decisions of late. They'd acknowledge that they glossed over the stuff they didn't like, to vote for an idea, rather than for a politician. Problem is, the politician they voted for has ideas that aren't in accordance with the imaginations of some of the electorate.

Whether he's a one term president or not will depend on how many independents and Republicans he can charm in the next four years. Where's the far left going to go? To the GOP? They can stay home, or do something idiotic, like vote for a meaningless third party candidate, if they'd like. But as they fall away (if they do) Obama is counting on making the center and the center right swoon.

No shooting the messenger. These things are just...obvious.

[bertman]

29. "subparty agency"!! Now that is a laugh and a half. Harold Ford is a mouthpiece.

MADem, the DLC's the avowed corporatist wing of the Democratic party that solidified power during the Clinton Presidency. To act like the DLC is not a "power behind the throne" is ignoring the reality of the people Obama has chosen to surround him. As the OP asserts, Rubin is just one of the group that includes his Sec of State and his Chief of Staff, plus SEVEN other cabinet members.

Do you think President Obama ignores these people?

[MADem]

32. Oh, please. Do you thiink "these people" ignore President Obama?

Stop trying to INFANTALIZE the man every time he does something you don't like. Stop trying to portray him as bullied or beset. He WON--as he, himself, pointed out.

It's beneath you, and it insults him--and that would be a laugh and a half, only it isn't really very funny. What you're trying to say is that the "Dee El Cee" picked his cabinet. If that's not the case, then OBAMA, himself, by choosing those people, himself is "Dee El Cee."

He's not a VICTIM. He's an ACTOR. In fact, he's playing the lead.

Obama is pleased to place himself in the CENTER of the party and the nation. He's NOT a "progressive" and he's not an anti-abortion Democratic conservative like Jack Murtha. He's a centrist, a moderate, and this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who paid attention to the words he was saying (in between the change and believe stuff) during the primaries and the election.

It's where he's chosen to position himself as a leader. No one has a gun to his head. It's HIS call--it's his choices.

OBAMA is in charge. Not some boogiemen from the "Dee El Cee."

:eyes:

[truedelphi]

23. I feel the same here, bertman. n/t

[mmonk]

2. Yes, unfortunately. Many of those that have brought us to this point

are on board. Funny, one of the reasons I didn't vote for Clinton was the Clinton people but surprise, the joke was on me.

Naomi Klein's take on the appointments if interested: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x265682

[glitch]

35. Very interested, thank you. nt

[scarletwoman]

45. "one of the reasons I didn't vote for Clinton was the Clinton people.." Yeah, joke's on us, I guess.

That was my biggest reason for supporting Obama, I wanted to see the Clintonites exiled to the outer darkness forever.

But, noooooooo. They are the undead. :(

sw

[snot]

5. K&R'd -- this is impt.

[terisan]

7. May be true. Summers, Rubin, Geithner, even Biden as vp are bad news for us.

Summers fought against oversight of derivatives, Rubin is Citibank and defended their business practices, also was involved in some sleaziness re Citibank and Enron, Biden got tons of anti consumer legislation passed for the credit card industry.

The Icelanders waited to long to start screaming--they are on the hook for billions and have a population in the 300 thousands. The
World Bank will chew them up for a snack



Putin has just started trying to get rid of the dollar as a major world currency. (Of course with the barrel price of oil he has his own troubles.

We need to move faster than the Icelanders did and most oppose additional money to the big banks. Our finance guys know they are going under anyway.

The stimulus money needs to be watched carefully because there are going to be more misuses and disappearances there.

[mmonk]

10. I'm with you all the way.

It's almost like a bait and switch. We vote for change and we get the people in large part responsible for our dilemma and that brought us here. We need to stay organized as progressives and be the squeeky wheel.

[MADem]

12. Why are people so shocked? Obama was never a leftist. He was

almost in lockstep with Clinton, with a bit more "telegraphing" on the gay issue, and a bit more misdirection on "war." He didn't mean all war, but people were so eager to believe that they didn't listen to him.

Obama's a centrist, who leans left on some issues, right on others. He is a bit of a triangulator, too. Get used to it. It's how successful Presidencies are prosecuted.

I agree with the need to watch the stimulus cash. We can't have it disappearing like those Billions Over Baghdad did.....

[Nikki Stone1]

14. Weren't Hillary supporters trying to point this out during the primary?

I remember reading so many posts on this. Of course, so many posters were banned or just left during the primaries that is it hard to think of them all.

[MADem]

20. Yes, the big difference was "experience." One had more time on the national stage than the other.

And the "two fer" spouse.

But no sense rehashing all that. It's done, and we have a President and his name is Obama.

We have a SECSTATE and her name is Clinton.

They're so close in terms of policy as to be almost indistinguishable, in terms of their Big Picture view. You get down in the weeds and there are differences, but they're not miles apart in any event.

I just continue to be surprised every time I see people who are taken aback when Obama behaves in ways that reflect his ideology. It's like they thought they were voting for a totally different package--which means they either didn't listen, or they listened selectively, and filtered out all the crap that didn't meet with their approval.

[KoKo]

42. I liked Hillary but think she was more a Rubin supporter than I would think Obama would be.

Bill, Rubin and Greenspan. Hillary and Bill know that team..they feel Rubin/Greenspan were responsible for Clinton's successful economy. They aren't gonna throw "under the bus" the best thing the Clintons have after the Repugs and the Lewinski thing trashed them. They've clawed their way back...but they've had help from the very same people many of us Dems on the Left despise because we know what their economic policies turned out to be...and how they brought us along with MUCHO HELP from the BUSHOLINI's to where we are now in World Economic Free Fall. :-( I wish it wasn't so. I hope Obama will free himeself from these people as soon as he can.

[mmonk]

15. I'm not looking for a leftist. I'm looking for sound policy.

Have you looked around you lately? Repeal of Glass Steagall and deriative markets and sub prime mortgage securities markets and swaps are a big part of it, you know. Why can't we have someone like Buffet in charge?

[MADem]

17. Don't get annoyed with me for pointing out the obvious. Yes, I have looked around.

Times are tough and they are getting tougher. I've gone from supporting one unemployed family member to helping out three more. This ain't fun. Prices of everything are going up. And of course, right around the holidays I get hit with a slew of household systems going on the fritz and requiring repair and replacement. I've torn into my savings way, way, WAY more than I'd like.

I don't see things getting better soon.

Who knows, maybe Obama calls Buffet and they chat. It could happen. I can't see Buffet wanting a government job. Consulting, off the record....sure, he'd like that. Full time? Fuck that. I think he'd get bored.

My only point is, when it comes to Obama, he's the man. He's the one who has to make the calls. We can only hope he makes the right one.

[mmonk]

19. The leftist word evoked my response.

[MADem]

22. Well, let me rephrase: Obama was never an Economic Liberal.

He's not going to stray too far from paradigms, at least not at the outset. Once he gets his seat on the horse, he may try doing some fancy riding, but I wouldn't count on it in the near term.

[mmonk]

24. That's better.

Too many people use terms like leftist to where it doesn't have much meaning anymore. I think my concerns are pretty mainstream and people like Buffet, Whitney, Roubini, and Soros share it. Let's hope for the best.

[MADem]

28. I use it in the classic sense--left/liberal; centrist/moderate; right/conservative

And I apply it within the party as well as without.

All we really can do is hope for the best, and hope that Obama gets some good advice.

I wish Obama every possible bit of luck, skill and good fortune he can muster in this endeavor.

[Jim Sagle]

30. 'Get used to it. It's how successful Presidencies are prosecuted.'

Successful for whom?

Review FDR vs WJC and get back to us on that.

[MADem]

34. Excuse me? FDR died in office. WJC did the max two terms.

I'm not taking your point...which was not poorly articulated, it was NOT articulated. At all.

There's nothing there to "get back to us" on.

If you want to make up your own happy little checklist as to what constitutes a "successful" presidency, you go right ahead.

Not losing an election and leaving with high poll numbers, that's probably as good a measure as you're going to get.

The economy didn't take off until AFTER the Second World War was over, people were living in deprivation because everything--from tin to meat to gasoline to ladies stockings-- was rationed. WJC presided over an economy that started out with pockets of high unemployment and misery, but soon was awash in excessive consumerism and could only be called "robust." So you can't possibly be trying to compare those economies. Or maybe you could...you just don't make yourself clear.

It's still too soon to see how Obama will shake out, in any event.

FWIW, dismissive snark doesn't foster debate, especially when it's not well thought-out or even marginally articulated.

[Jim Sagle]

36. FDR was for the people, WJC not so much.

And you DAMN well understood that already. Nice pretend ignorance there.

[MADem]

48. No, I did NOT understand that, and you're just making shit up now.

Don't give me "pretend" ignorance when you're working with the real item, now.

You're tossing crap cookies now because you're angry and you don't care for WJC. William Clinton was a compassionate pragmatist who was politically astute and knew how to read his Congress and do what was do-able--as was FDR.

The only thing I "DAMN" well understand is that you've lost the bubble on your discussion points.

Have a nice day.

[leftofthedial]

21. Gee. When I pointed that out a month ago,

I was called stupid and pathetic and a hater...

[truedelphi]

27. Most people pride themselves on how they don't know anything

About the economy. I have had so many friends saying "Well don't you understand how smart Obama is. He'll straighten out this mess. He's that good and that smart."

Then they add, "Besides, the economy is too big to understand."

I wonder to myself how it is that the early colonists who put Great Britain out of the picture understood economics so well. Create local jobs, and keep foreign competition out, they said. Even if it means waging war against the Motherland.

So what has changed? Well in the 1770's, most people had grade school educations if that. But they loved to read. they loved to THINK. While today people have Master's Degrees, but don't allow themselves the creativity of reading about history or economy or anything that makes the Grey Matter go through its paces. The last book they read? Something to do with a murder in Ottawa in the 1980's. Or whatever.

[chill_wind]

31. Krugman 1-29-09: "Bad".

As the Obama administration apparently prepares to launch Hankie Pankie II — buying troubled assets from banks at prices higher than they will fetch on the open market — it occurred to me that an updated version of an old Communist-era joke may be appropriate: under Bush, financial policy consisted of Wall Street types cutting sweet deals, at taxpayer expense, for Wall Street types. Under Obama, it’s precisely the reverse.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/bad/

[slipslidingaway]

37. Thanks n/t

[bertman]

38. Thanks for the Naomi Klein clip, mmonk. MADem, this isn't about right versus left.

It's about policies that favor and implement the restoration of regulation, sound financial practices, and accountability to the culture of Wall Street. Perhaps you could provide me with some links showing how candidate Obama told us he would continue the same fiscal policies as Summers, Rubin, and the No-Regulation cadre of the Democratic party. I remember him talking about fiscal responsibility and using the monetary power of our government to be the engine of a new green economy and massive infrastructure rebuilding, among other things--not about continuing on the same trail that was blazed by Rubin and Summers during the Clinton/DLC years and later followed by BushCo.

I am not expecting President Obama to be a fiscal leftist. I am expecting him to be a fiscally prudent President who recognizes that you do not employ the same generals who lead you into your fiscal Waterloo to organize and orchestrate your counteroffensive to win the next big battle.

Anyone who thinks that President Obama acts unilaterally without considering the wishes and recommendations of his inner circle of advisors is simply misguided. Perhaps when making decisions regarding Constitutional Law our new president will make choices and policy changes based on HIS expertise in that field, but rest assured that he is leaning heavily on the experience and judgment of the people HE selected to be in his inner circle for their ideas regarding areas in which he is not an expert. That inner circle of financial failure wizards are whispering the same bullshit into Obama's ear that they whispered into Bill Clinton's ear. Only now, their "expertise" has been shown to be in formulating horrific fiscal policy that leads to disaster for the country. Nonetheless, President Obama is obliged to go with their recommendations or else he will look like he screwed the pooch when he selected those advisors. He cannot afford to look inept and go against his cabinet recommendations right now or he will be excoriated by the right and the left for having blown such major personnel selections.

[chill_wind]

40. Beautifully stated.

One for the journals, for sure.

[bertman]

41. Thank you, chill_wind.

[KoKo]

44. Yes...it's what you say...and I'm sure he's had to compromise

a bit a long the way...given that both Clinton's are very powerful force. There was probably much "behind the scenes" we can only guess at ...but our guesses are probably pretty good...just we don't know ALL.

I hope he can work through gradually decoupling from the Greenspan/Rubinomics. I would hope the Clintons would even see the ruin that those policies led us to. But, then, they are also beholden to those who brought themselves "to the dance" for two terms.

[scarletwoman]

47. Wonderful post! Thank you! I never expected him to be a socialist, I just hoped

that his vaunted intellect would lead him to recognize the inherent flaws of neoliberal economic policies.

sw

[bertman]

49. Thank you, scarletwoman. There's always room for hope that he will be able to overcome

the weight of the neolibs who surround him now.

[scarletwoman]

50. I don't know. While I far preferred Obama to the alternatives, I never had much "hope" that he'd

actually "change" the status quo consensus reality.

He never struck me as someone who was about actually challenging the entrenched powers-that-be. It has always seemed to me that he just wants to make the PTB more efficient.

sw

[leftstreet]

39. K&R

[EraOfResponsibility]

43. So what? Robert Gates is still secretary of Defense.

But you'd better believe he's going to follow Obama's orders to get out of Iraq in 16 months.