Peter Baker has a fascinating profile of Bill Clinton in the New York Times magazine (Baker also appeared on The Charlie Rose Show; that interview is worth watching as well). One of the arguments made by Clinton supporters is that he governed in a Republican era, which limited his ability to be a transformative figure. President Obama, on the other hand, is governing at the beginning of a “progressive” era. Or so the argument goes.
President Obama certainly seems to buy into this critique; he is, after all, governing as if the country were fundamentally different, and more liberal, than it is. It’s a big bet, and I’m doubtful that it’s a wise one.
For one thing, Americans — by roughly a two-to-one margin — consider themselves to be conservative rather than liberal. In addition, polling data shows the public hasn’t embraced big government, certainly not a permanent expansion of it. Obama’s victory in 2008 was an impressive political victory; it was not, based on the available evidence, an ideologically decisive one. There is, in fact, a fair amount of public wariness about Obama’s policies. Many Americans like Obama and they seem impressed with his activism, but they are a bit unnerved, I think, by the direction in which he’s taking the country. They are willing to give him a chance at this early stage, but the support is hardly enthusiastic or unqualified.
The danger for Obama, is that he is overreaching; he is using the economic crisis to push through policies that are enlarging, to a staggering degree, the size and scope of government. The debt and deficit are like exploding stars; their radiating effects may well reconfigure our politics. They may also make tax increases inevitable on Obama’s watch. More dangerous for Obama would be if his policies turned out to be defective at their root and acted as an anchor on the economy over time. Deflation may give way to a significant spike in inflation, which in turn may necessitate a large increase in interest rates.
If that happens — and the occurrence of such a scenario is certainly possible, and perhaps even likely — it may turn out that we are not only not at the beginning of a progressive era; Obamaism may trigger a new conservative one. We’ll find out in due course.
That Peter Principle that holds that people are promoted to their level of incompetence is holding fast in this administration.
Jennifer -
I don’t think Geithner is in any position to raise hell about the Administration’s failures in the vetting department.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, although in Commentary‘s case it’s more like twice a year. This is one of those times. Geithner failed on this. Won’t be the first time a government official failed, and it won’t be the last. I hope Congress will expeditiously approve confiscatory tax rates on the misbegotten bonuses, and start applying some real oversight of the government’s handling of the AIG mess in particular and of the rest of the bailouts.
I don’t think the government has any choice but to do the bailouts. It is an extremely bitter pill to swallow, and I want to see not just regulation but retribution in the form of criminal investigations into the past behavior of financial institutions. We have not just a financial crisis, but a crisis of legitimacy that affects all of our institutions. This is one of those Aha! moments in America, where the public at large is awakening to the extent of the corruption and dry rot throughout business, finance, and government.
Congress, the president, and the courts need to take notice. The public is angry, and that anger goes deeper than they think.
Jennifer,
Your suggestion to tell the employees “not to expect anything for a few years” illustrates perfectly why the retention bonuses were necessary…and just. Liddy testified yesterday to Congress that he had already decided to wind down the business. So these guys knew that their jobs were going away in a year, which means time to jump ship ASAP. But they were the best people to wind down the book, so best to keep them around…only way to do that is to pay them to stick around, which is exactly what Liddy did. I’d be quite surprised if the same situation isn’t in place for key employees to get retention bonuses to help wind down Ch. 7 liquidation. Sounds like the right move to help recoup the taxpayers’ investment, no?
On the lack-of-presence matter, maybe Geithner can just carry around a Teleprompter at all times. That seems to work for other clueless guys.
citigroup is a bad company
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10474606/1/todays-outrage-citigroup-stiffs-stockholders.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN
Shadenfreude at seeing the Democrats in disarray aside, the AIG bonuses are neither a major matter (it’s a teacup of money in the current scheme of things) nor especially inappropriate (see #4). But the idea of a special tax rate to reclaim the money is highly offensive on both ex post facto and bill of attainer grounds – do we really want a world where a Congressional lynch mob can seize particular individuals income because it happens to be really ticked off about something? The worst aspect of this is the screaming hypocrisy of the Democrats in Congress who got us here by jamming through an unexamined bill containing this and who knows how many other atrocities, and are now pointing fingers in all directions to distract from their own responsibility.
“You don’t go months without assistants” — Jennifer Rubin, arguing for bigger government.
Isn’t government the problem? You want the activist Treasury Secretary to be more effective at socializing Wall Street? You think government should be controlling Wall Street compensation? You have no principles, conservative or otherwise, beyond hatred of Obama and the Democrats. It’s painfully obvious that you simply see Geithner as vulnerable to a partisan hack attack.
If you had any sense of the bigger picture, you’d see that this is another nail in the Rightwing coffin. 76% of people, according to Gallup, want government to block or recover the AIG bonuses. America wants an activist government, and even Republicans believe that government is the answer to these economic problems.
Why else would you see the Treasury Secretary as so critical to America’s economic health? You are a bad liberal Democrat, but you are a liberal Democrat nonetheless.
I’ve got to agree with the Loyal Opponent. If the point of the bailout was for AIG to keep on doing business, and if the CEO thought paying the bonuses was the best way to conduct the business, as he apparently did, then the bonuses ought to stand.
The Treasury Secretary was already incompetent enough at not asking AIG for an accounting of its bad assets and the other companies it put at risk–in other words, not asking where 99% of the bailout funds were going to go. No reason for him to demonstrate further incompetence by trying to micromanage the retention of employees.
Those who are disgusted at the bonuses should direct their anger where it belongs: the bailing out of failing firms.
Well, well, well.
When even Hartland (!!) can’t bring himself to parrot the party line, you know things have taken a very strange turn, indeed. Although at least for the time being, it seems that President himself is being spared any responsibility, as if that Geithner fellow is off working for some other Administration, and as if the Congress that approved these bailouts and bonuses were under the control of some other party unconnected to Obama. But anyway…
“I hope Congress will expeditiously approve confiscatory tax rates on the misbegotten bonuses and start applying some real oversight of the government’s handling of the AIG mess in particular and of the rest of the bailouts…”
Yeah, I hope so, too. I also hope I’ll win the Powerball lottery. Neither is likely to happen anytime soon. But here’s hoping.
#8 What the hell difference does it make if 76%, or 95% of the people want the government to do something that is unconstitutional?
Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. – Mark Twain
The Collins piece pushes one of the left-media myths that appears to be springing up these days to cover Obama–namely, that it’s the thorough vetting process of his administration that is preventing him from nominating people for his administration. This does not jibe with the facts–in fact, Obama and Co. knew about Geithner’s (and others) tax problems and did not find anything wrong with them. Rather, it’s the outrage of the public when these tax problems have been revealed during the Congressional confirmation process that has derailed them.
This notion that the Obama administration’s vetting process is too stringent is a convenient lie; the administration obviously has no problem at all with allowing all manner of crooks into high positions.
Both chambers of Congress are preparing legislation that would tax those bonuses away. There are times, this being one of them, where the powers that be take a look out here and get scared. I think something will be done. Oh, and unlike the knee-jerk wingnuts who licked George W. Bush’s boots at every turn for eight years running, when Obama’s people screw up, there’ll be Democrats out there saying so. My side is not the pack of corporatist suckups that you are.
The first three sentences — eh, maybe. We’ll see.
The last two sentences are beyond parody.
John Hartland,
Try reading the Constitution. What the Dems in Congress are trying to do in targeting these bonuses is clearly unconstitutional and should frighten anyone who believes in any degree of limited government power.
DD (Re: #8)
You sarcastically said:
“Isn’t government the problem?”…
…which statement really just makes you “a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen”.
Now, if you’d said “Isn’t INCOMPETENT government the problem?” (meaning (e.g.) Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and others),
and
“Isn’t INCOMPETENT government going to make the problem worse?” (meaning Tim Geithner & Barak Obama)…
… then you’d have been mostly right.
But you didn’t analyze it that way – so Jennifer is mostly right and you are mostly wrong.
America wants COMPETENT – not activist – government.
We haven’t gotten competence from your side of the fence in the past — and we’re not gonna get it from Geithner and the Obamassiah in the future.
Instead, you will give us a more activist – and even more INCOMPETENT – government.
And that definitely makes you a good liberal Democrat.
Try reading the Constitution. What the Dems in Congress are trying to do in targeting these bonuses is clearly unconstitutional and should frighten anyone who believes in any degree of limited government power.
Funny that you should mention the Constitution. Did you get your knickers in a twist when your slobbering, drunken war criminal of a Republican faker, George W. Bush, used it as a doormat? The Constitution forbids bills of attainder. The legislation, as I read it, will impose a 90% tax rate on incomes over $250,000 paid by companies than get more than $5 billion in subsidies from the federal government. It won’t just apply to AIG, but to Fannie and Freddy, and to the big banks.
Bill of attainder? I don’t think so. The legislation doesn’t name anyone, and as I say, it casts the net wider than just one company. The courts will be the ultimate arbiter, if someone wants to put his name on a lawsuit that is. Having been paid a bonus or two in my life, on an underlying income of more than $250K, I don’t exactly think I’d want to have my name a household word. But that’s an individual decision.
There is nothing whatsoever unfair about clawing back that money. AIG, Citibank, Fanny, Freddie, and the rest, are no longer private companies. They are in public receivership, at least in a de facto sense. There should be nothing whatsoever sancrosanct about those bonuses. If they had had any brains, the bonuses would have been deferred and payable only if and when the government subsidies were repaid.
Put greed aside here. It’s common sense, which is in desperately short supply at the top in this country. The pitchforks are raised and the torches are blazing, so the powers that be had better follow through. They should also look at bonuses paid within pass-through recipients, i.e., Goldman Sachs. The Justice Department should carefully examine the Merrill Lynch payments as a fraudulent conveyance, with an eye toward criminal prosecution.
The cronyism ought to stop, and it should be the hardest of hard stops. There is no limit to the arrogance of this clan. Now would be a good time to give them a spanking they won’t soon forget.
Here is yet another example of their brainless arrogance. In the larger scheme of things, $10 million is a drop in the bucket, but you do have to wonder whether people who are that stupid can be trusted to do anything right.
“Everyone keeps saying how bright he is. But if he were really bright — not just filled with data or possessing technical acumen — he would realize he’s in the wrong job, find his own replacement, and see if he can get his old gig back at the New York Fed. Really, we’d all be fine with that. And the markets would throw one heck of a going away party.”
No, at this point I want Tim Tax Cheat Geithner as far away from the financial markets as possible.
16
Interesting take on conservatism So you are not against big government, you are against “INCOMPETENT” government. Well, Bush got it half right, then (the big part). But you’re going to have to correct Reagan: “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” I’m sure he meant to say add incompetent, because growing competent government wouldn’t bother a true conservative. And, according to you, leaving out the word “incompetent” makes Reagan “mostly wrong.”
Gee, this blog is full of closet Democrats. You reject Reagan, and seem more in line with Obama: “… take the example of big government vs. small government. My instinct is is that the current generation is more interested in smart government. Let’s have enough government to get the job done. If, if we’re looking at problems, if the market solution works, let’s go with the market solution. If a solution requires government intervention, let’s do that. But let’s look at what are the practical outcomes. And I think that kind of politics is what the country’s hungry for right now.”
I must say, I love the new leftward tilt of Contentions.
DD (Re #20):
If you will lend me your Drivel-to-English Dictionary, I may be able to figure out what you “think” you said (although “abnormal psychology” isn’t really my field).
Your interpretation of the quote from Reagan’s 1st inaugural is simply shallow. Context shows Reagan had no problem with limited, competent government – not so for unlimited, growing, or activist (=incompetent) government.
Your Obama quote is also delightful.
If he actually meant it (but since actions speak louder than words, we know he doesn’t), then he’d be a libertarian of a “pragmatist” variety – and that would be major progress-towards-reality for any leftist.
But I am delighted that he feels he needs to at least pretend that he’s not a “true-believer” in socialist elitism (=socialist parasitism).