If you’re wondering what’s in store for desperately needed reform of the financial industry that wrecked the U.S. economy, dealt a body blow to the world economy and threw millions out of jobs, homes, businesses and savings, the answer is: probably going down the same rat hole as health care reform.
The handwriting isn’t on the wall, it’s in the printed text of two news stories, beginning with this one from Feb. 7.:
WASHINGTON — If the Democratic Party has a stronghold on Wall Street, it is JPMorgan Chase.
Its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, is a friend of President Obama’s from Chicago, a frequent White House guest and a big Democratic donor. Its vice chairman, William M. Daley, a former Clinton administration cabinet official and Obama transition adviser, comes from Chicago’s Democratic dynasty.
But this year Chase’s political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. While it has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts.
Now, you might have the audacity to hope that from the home of “changing the way Washington works” — the Obama White House — there might come reassuring evidence of change you can believe in, such as saying something like, “These huge bank bonuses are examples of unconscionable excess and greed trumping any sense of responsibility and shame for having caused terrible harm to millions of nonwealthy, taxpaying people across the country and around the world.”
Given presidential candidate Barack Obama’s many statements, assurances and promises, it would be reasonable for you to expect that. Reasonable but apparently naive, as this story from today makes painfully clear.
Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.
The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don’t get to the World Series either, so I’m shocked by that as well.”
“I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in the interview yesterday in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”
Economist Paul Krugman says it for us, in these final paragraphs of a New York Times blog post headlined “Clueless“:
The point is that these bank executives are not free agents who are earning big bucks in fair competition; they run companies that are essentially wards of the state. There’s good reason to feel outraged at the growing appearance that we’re running a system of lemon socialism, in which losses are public but gains are private. And at the very least, you would think that Obama would understand the importance of acknowledging public anger over what’s happening.
But no. If the Bloomberg story is to be believed, Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet “the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.”
We’re doomed.
At the very least, we seem doomed to three long, frustrating years in which the work of reform, justice and democracy get prioritized down, compromised away and thrown over the side, again and again and again.
P.S.: Be sure to read all of Krugman’s post.
What’s the old joke? I’ve got them right were they want me.
We’re screwed.
I have been reading about Obama’s comments to Bloomberg magazine, if I said I’m disappointed, it would be an understatement. Should cause a firestorm on the left-leaning blogs this weekend. Quite rightly too. Demeur is right, we’re screwed.
But at least we’ll be screwed in a non-revolutionary, non-bloodshed on the streets kind of, um, I had some kind of point, but I accidentally erased what I had written on my hand.
Demeur, that about sums it up.
Holte, what amazes me is that it’s not as though this course Obama is on is working well for him and the Democratic Party. See my post below, about the Washington Post-ABC News poll. What Obama’s doing confronts people who aren’t Republicans and tea baggers an ominous question: Why bother to vote for a Democrat?
Randal, I’m sure a brilliant insight is down some drain. What a shame.
Not that I don’t agree that Obama’s statements are a nonsensical and disappointing retreat for this hollow administration, but we could have taken the same lesson from his appointing of yet another Goldman fluffer at Treasury in the form of Geithner.
Both of those news stories are discouraging but not surprising. It seems more and more like “hope and change” has morphed into “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Kvatch, Obama has made several regrettable appointments. There’s quite a story on that here. I see his close reliance on Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel as even worse.
Tom, it’s all the more maddening because I expected Bush to screw up royally, but not Obama.
I didn’t support him, but early in his campaign Joe Stiglitz and Austin Goolsbee (sp?) were among Obama’s economic advisers so in the odd event that Nader DIDN’T win once I got over the shock I could deal with Obama.
Apparently Stiglitz and Goolsbee were just hanging around waiting for to-go boxes or something because the prez immediately put them on the pay-no-mind list.
I guess when you have selfless advocates for the common man like Geithner and Summers in the wings there’s just no need to look any further.
OSO, I didn’t realize that about Stiglitz and Goolsbee. It adds to my suspicion that at some point Bill Clinton converted Obama to become a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)- type Democrat, just like him. Or maybe Obama was DLC all along. Either way, it’s not good for Obama, the Dems and, most important, the country. Great for the Waltons of Bentonville, Ark., though.
To answer the question- why vote for a Democrat, simple answer… the Republicans planned this, executed it and they are not in the habit of leaving surpluses… they steal.
http://www.rense.com/general26/dutch.htm
Read this…and then tell me if you will vote for them.
That’s an amazing story, teeluck. I’ve seen reference to it before, and it doesn’t surprise me. Thanks for the link.
Another strain of thought is that conservatives Republicans want to leave the government broke because they know if Democrats have the money to enact people-helping programs for the middle and working classes, people will keep electing Democrats. I tend to believe that, especially since Republicans spend so much time talking about how they want “fiscal responsibility,” but still manage to leave the government broke.
One other thing on this. I still want to know where that $9 billion that disappeared in Iraq in 2003 wound up. I’ve always suspected at least some of it wound up in George W. Bush’s re-election campaign fund.
I know this might seem kind of far-fetched but do you think it’s possible Obama said this to test the waters in terms of what to do next?
Maybe he’s planning to turn hard left populist and wanted to see what liberals were feeling at this point in time…
jm, I’d like to think that — and see what you suggest happening. By all accounts, the Obama White House is well aware that the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party has been tearing its hair out since last August, at least. Rahm Emanuel refers to us as f-ing retards, and Geithner and Summers couldn’t care less what the political left thinks, not as long as they have Obama’s backing.
Obama would do well to steer left and stay that course. That’s where his ardent supporters are and where real reform gains horsepower. People, including lots of independents, will get on board when they see solid, determined leadership getting somewhere. People don’t follow when they see leaders fumbling around, playing pocket pool and achieving only muddled results, if any — when those leaders should be playing hardball, rallying supporters and delivering solid results.
I very much agree. He needs to think about who he can realistically win over at this point… it ain’t gonna be Republicans and it ain’t gonna be conservative independents. But if he can get back in the good graces of his base and win back the respect of moderate independents he would be all right.
I know how badly he wanted to ease the partisanship but we’re more or less a 50/50 country. Reaching out to the other side doesn’t seem to have made that any less true.
Liberal Values has a post pointing out the distortions in the Bloomberg piece.
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=12187
Thanks for the link, LP. I read every bit of it and the preceding post there as well. I’m with the Steve M. quoted in that preceding post. FWIW, I didn’t twist anything; I showed what Obama said in the interview. Nothng was taken out of context that materially changed the meaning of what Obama said or of Krugman’s understandable reaction. (Krugman does not hate Obama.)
Also FWIW, I don’t begrudge successful people the fruits of their success, if gained honestly, through their creativity, hard work and legitimate achievement. What the banksters did is creative like a con man is creative. It didn’t involve hard work or yield honest gains. The crooked bastards ought to be targets of criminal conspiracy investigations by federal prosecutors, on a fast track to a long stay in a federal prison.
That Obama can’t see the difference between what Wall Street bankers and their ilk did and what sports stars do, or honest business people do, speaks volumes, with no twisting of words necessary and no twisting done. Maybe the president is blinded by knowing these characters and considering them friends. During eight long years of Bush’s reign of error, we called that “crony capitalism.”
Like Tom said, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I hate to say it, but that’s what’s shaping up here, based on facts, actions and inaction that all speak louder than CYA words.
I followed a link within the post that Leslie linked, and I have to say, the headlines I’ve seen recently were pretty out of whack, compared to the transcript of what was said at the interview. I’m not in the slightest at a Bloomberg spin. I didn’t really take it as blinded by his friendships with the hustlers, but rather a…well, a trying to put it diplomatically, and failing miserably at it.
Bee, if this was the first and only thing of this kind to come up, I wouldn’t be put off by it. But it’s not. I’m seeing a pattern that’s disturbing, disappointing and different from what Obama encouraged people to believe during the campaign. I hope he proves my increasing disenchantment unfounded and unnecessary.
SW, I hope so too. Believe me, I really do.