Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Clinton Bubble
Has Timothy Geithner ever had lunch with a non-megamillionaire who has lost his job or home because of the banking meltdown? I ask that question after reading the list of the treasury secretary's luncheon dates when he was head of the New York Federal Reserve, a list that the government was forced to provide in response to a lawsuit.
During those years when he was supposed to be supervising Wall Street, he supped most often in the top-echelon dining room of some bank or at the home of one of the financial moguls who created the mess that has now bankrupted billions throughout the world. One of his frequent luncheon buddies was Sanford I. Weill, who as chairman of Citigroup lobbied successfully for the reversal of key regulations that dated back to the New Deal era. That change permitted Weill's oligarchy to become "too big to fail."
Another preferred dining companion was Robert Rubin, who as Bill Clinton's treasury secretary pushed through Weill's favored deregulation-a disastrous "reform" that lies at the heart of the current mess-and who went on to become chairman of Citigroup, where he presided over a downfall of the company that required a $45 billion taxpayer bailout. Geithner had worked for Rubin at the Treasury Department, and it was Rubin who got him his job at the New York Fed and hooked him up with Barack Obama.
Geithner has since pushed the Obama administration to approach the banking crisis not in response to the needs of destitute homeowners but rather from the side of the bankers who are seizing their homes. Instead of keeping people in their homes with a freeze on foreclosures, he has rewarded the unscrupulous lenders who conned ordinary folks.
He still wants to give more money to Citigroup, which has just been found woefully short of cash by Treasury's auditors, and has not stopped Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and some other big banks ostensibly under government influence, and indeed sometimes ownership, from recently ending their temporary moratoriums on housing foreclosures. Geithner has been in the forefront of coddling the banks in the hopes that welfare for the rich will trickle down to suffering homeowners, but that has not happened.
As The New York Times revealed this week in a devastating exposé of Geithner's record: "An examination of Mr. Geithner's five years as president of the New York Fed, an era of unbridled and ultimately disastrous risk-taking by the financial industry, shows that he forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Street's giant financial institutions. His actions, as a regulator and later a bailout king, often aligned with the industry's interests and desires, according to interviews with financiers, regulators and analysts and a review of Federal Reserve records."
Most revealing was the Times' discovery that Geithner shocked a meeting of top government officials, convened by then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson to deal with the financial crisis, when "[h]e proposed asking Congress to give the president broad power to guarantee all the debt in the banking system. ... "
Now I know that the conventional wisdom among Democrats is that the Clintonistas were wildly successful in running the economy when they had their turn, and that Rubin and his protégés Lawrence Summers and Geithner deserve a lot of the credit. But that view is dead wrong. The seeds of the current economic chaos were planted in those years, in which Wall Street lobbyists were given everything they wanted in the way of radical deregulation, and hence was born the madcap world of credit swaps and other unregulated derivatives.
The result was a Clinton bubble, which saw the rise of a new superrich class that vastly skewed income distribution in favor of what was termed the "working rich" by Emmanuel Saez, who deservedly just won the top prize for young economists, the American Economic Association's John Bates Clark Medal. Members of the "working rich" are well represented in the top 1 percent of income "earners," who, according to a study by Saez, "captured about half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2006." The record is clear that from the first year of the Clinton reign, the new class of superrich, including many Wall Streeters, benefited as much as the other 99 percent of the nation's population did from the policies that Clinton put in place and George W. Bush accelerated.
To add salt to the wounds of those left out of the bubble, the Clinton administration summarily ended the federal poverty program in the name of a so-called welfare reform that "devolved" programs for the poor to the tender mercy of the states. The meanness derby between the cash-strapped states is on, and the poor, a category that includes a growing number of folks who only recently were judged "middle class," are abandoned.
What is involved here is an extreme case of government-condoned "moral hazard" offering outrageous compensation to the superrich for screwing up royally. Where is the socially conscious Obama we voted for? E-mail him and ask.
- Posted in




29 Comments so far
Show AllClinton was OK until he smelled the lovey aroma of money, so now both he and Hillary are junior members in the Country Club of Aristocrats, a place where the Bush family was long before any Bush ever got into politics. Only 1% of the population is allowed into the club. Those inside the beltway have no idea what the reality of daily living is like. They only listen to pollsters and lobbyists. And the turnover rate is very low, so new blood inside the beltway is powerless. The solution is revolution, but that ain't gonna happen in this country, but it would be nice if we could share the wealth, not only in America, but worldwide.
The Clinton legacy is easy to explain:
1993 Bill zealously pushes NAFTA into law during his first year as president.
1994: Democrats stay away from the polls, Clinton loses control of Senate.
1997: Bill reduces welfare for low income people, enhances corporate welfare.
1998: Bill lies about getting blowjob, even though nobody outside a few neocons considered it a serious issue. Many more Americans consider the lie a serious issue, thereby forcing Clinton to become more Republican each day.
1999: Bill zealously supports deregulation of financial industry, enabling crimes that would lead to 2008 meltdown.
2001: Hill becomes US Senator from NY. Bill and Hill move to NY to be closer to their Wall Street partners in crime.
2002: To help her military industrial complex buddies on Wall Street, Hill votes for tougher personal bankruptcy laws and Iraq invasion.
2008: Although Obama opposes Hill in democratic presidential primary, he becomes a Clinton clone one he secures the nomination.
2009: Obama morphs into Snobama and the seven insiders and panders to the financial industry the way the Clintons do.
Bill Clinton only looks good in comparison to GWB. Can't we raise the bar a little, to maybe Grant or Polk?
Maybe this is off-point, but didn't CitiBank and Traveler's Insurance actually merge BEFORE the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley---as if they knew passage was a lock---making Citigroup illegal out of the gate?
For those who were paying attention, this was an evil portent of Biblical proportions.
To say that the "Cintonistas were wildly successful running the economy" is analagous to your favorite uncle who always had a brand new shiny convertible, an new girlfriend, and spend lavishly taking you to the amusement park...until his bills caught up with him.
Clinton looks good as compared to Bush is the same as saying the Good Cop looks good compared to the Bad Cop.
I couldn't have been wronger-- I used to think that the Clintons would become like the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Simpson, in accordance with a half-remembered comment that the royal pair finished out their lives drifting from island to island, growing tanner and tanner.
This was before the missus became senator, and it became clearer that they weren't about to let time pass them by.
I wish I had been right.
· Yr Obd't Servant
"Where is the socially conscious Obama we voted for?"
Social consciousness is not something to be found by Obama. Social consciousness is something that humans find themselves in. Obama has not found himself in social consciousness yet and that is his right. But that does not stop anyone from having social consciousness, Obama must not become the next great scapegoat for our sins if we want true change. Because that change which is upon us will not be started nor stopped by one man.
Perceive that social consciousness is not awaiting human origin, but that we are of social conscious origin awaiting for nothing but that awareness.
"Bill lies about getting blowjob, even though nobody outside a few neocons considered it a serious issue."
Actually, everyone who was awake considered repeated deliberate acts of perjury by the man entrusted with running the American judiciary system, a lawyer himself, an extremely serious issue, about as serious an issue as you can get. The rule of law is the foundation of everything, and if the president himself indicates that he has contempt for it it then it percolates down and eventually the whole system collapses. Make no mistake, it was Clinton's criminal acts (and perjury is a serious crime) that put Bush in office. And I'll bet that Obama's refusal to prosecute anyone in the financial or military communities for their massive crimes costs the Democrats the next one as well.
Re mikep April 29th, 2009 11:27 am
I would have felt some respect for Clinton if, when asked about "sex with that woman," had simply said, "It's none of your damned business."
And no, it's not "about as serious an issue as you can get." Lying us into two wars of aggression is about as serious as you can get.
And no again, it wasn't Slick's perjury that put Bush in office, it was brother Jeb in the governor's office in Florida and his dad's appointees on the Supreme Court.
And if you look into how it happened, it was Sandra Day O'Conner who put W in office. Hers was the deciding vote.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
Geithner had worked for Rubin at the Treasury Department, and it was Rubin who got him his job at the New York Fed and hooked him up with Barack Obama.
Such a cozy little nest of vipers.
"Where is the socially conscious Obama we voted for? E-mail him and ask."
Better yet, email your obstructionist reps.
Where is the socially conscious Obama we voted for? E-mail him and ask.
Don't bother. The answer you'll get will be an insulting and out and out lie.
"Where is the socially conscious Obama we voted for?"
There never was one. You got fooled.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
Obama lied about a few things. Trusting him was foolish
But I'm an old Who fan, and there are two things wrong w/ your sign-off.
First, the song is "Won't Get Fooled Again" and while it contains the words "don't get fooled again, it is part of the phrase Pick up my guitar and play/Just like yesterday/Then I'll get on my knees and pray/We don't get fooled again/Don't get fooled again
Second, it's Pete Townshend.
Of course the head of the Federal Reserve "branch" in New York is going to get wined and dined by all the banksters. The Federal Reserve is printing money out of thin air! What kind of bankster wouldn't want a piece of that action? That's why they rammed the central bank through Congress in the first place back in 1913. The author Robert Scheer's omission of this is troubling.
Also difficult to stomach is Scheer's premise that people who cannot afford their houses should be allowed to stay in them as long as they want without paying a dime. This artificially props up prices and prevents others who saved over the past few years from being able to purchase houses at pre-bubble prices. These savers are people who refused to take on questionable mortgages with balloon payment plans for hyper-inflating real estate because they knew that one missed paycheck after their ARM reset might put them out on the streets. Instead, Scheer would propose that the government punish their frugality and reward rampant consumerism by calling for a "freeze on foreclosures." Punish the fraud, yes, but don't punish people who saved money and tried to live within their means by making them bailout those who over extended their credit, whether it be banks or homeowners.
It's truly amazing how Scheer can both criticize Geithner for inflating the bubble, and then with the same pen in the same article advocate for simply changing the air temperature a little so we might re-inflate the bubble better next time around. It's just one central planner arguing with another these days at CD.
Are there no progressive authors left to advocate decentralizing power?
"Are there no progressive authors left to advocate decentralizing power?"
Good point.
The “Stupid” bubble.
In what may have been the best slight of hand trick in the history of planet Earth the unrelenting badgering of Bill Clinton by the rabid republicans during his administration served to obscure the fact that the Clinton presidency was one of the least friendly to the Middle Class and Working Poor in the history of the United States while allowing the ultra-wealthy unprecedented opportunities to gather massive amounts of wealthy onto themselves.
Which brings us to an important question; why did the right wing hate Bill Clinton with such a burning passion?
Obviously he did not attempt to rearrange society for the benefit of the masses at the expense of the wealthy like FDR. He didn’t climb aboard a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun like Hanoi Jane Fonda. He didn’t organize thousands of laborers to demand a living wage for an honest day’s work like Eugene Debs. And surly nobody with an IQ higher than a bunch of broccoli believes that Bill’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky could stoke such flames of hatred from the monogamously challenged GOP.
Nope, Bill’s sin is much darker, Bill rose from a background of dirt poor, white trash to the Office of the Presidency of the United States and for that sin he was loathed by today’s economic elite. America is now under the control of those, like George W. Bush, who were admitted to the East Coast elite schools as legacy admits instead of those who earned that privilege through hard work and natural intelligence.
Greed has been credited for most of the current economic crisis but ham-fisted adherence to intellectually bankrupt economic and political theories by dim bulbs positioned as bright stars due to their upper class background may be just as much the root cause of the current crisis as short sighted greed.
Can anybody with the brains to pass intro-level business classes at the local community college really think that business models that assume housing prices will never fall are valid? In a world where the rule books for golf, football and baseball are so complex that only a handful of experts have mastered the finer points of the games it is absurd to suggest that an extremely complex multi-trillion dollar financial sector like derivatives should be completely unregulated.
This trend is at work in more places than just the halls of America’s corporations, now that the newsrooms are stocked with right-wing ditto-monkeys parroting the daily points, the information that most America’s receive is not only filtered for right leaning ideological correctness it is also dumbed down to grade school level while being slanted to inflame the most base instincts of the right-wing ditto-head base.
Investigative reporting has been replaced by physically attracting thirty-something news readers who wouldn’t know real news if it walked into the newsroom and announced that the previous President of the United States was a pathologically lying, draft dodging, coke snorting, sadistic, megalomaniac, empty shirt that crapped all over the most basic principles this nation was founded upon.
And while not every institution in the United States is headed by legacy grads from elite eastern universities the same principle is at work in most of America’s institutions. Can school zero-tolerance policies that expel a student for repairing her crumbling desk with the screw driver attachment of her Swiss Army knife be so different than suggesting that economic derivatives no not need regulation? Was the absurd over production of ethanol capacity due to the excessive political power of Midwestern farmers any dumber than suggesting business models that assume housing prices will never fall were valid? Is confiscating tooth paste at the airport making us any safer when the unprotected borders of the nation that allow hundreds of thousands of immigrants to enter the nation completely unvetted every year? Are energy policies that seek to increase the production of domestic fossil fuels sane while artic ice is melting at unprecedented rates due to global warming created by excessive levels of CO2 that were created by burning fossil fuels?
Like the Emperor’s New Clothes nobody in the United States is willing to put their ass on the line and call bullshit on the many many ill-founded choices this nation has made over the last generation, and until this trend ends expecting different results from doing the same stupid shit repeatedly is insane.
Stop making so much sense! It's downright "unAmerican"! Stupid is as stupid does, and this country does stupid better than most!
We have a caste system of people as well as ideas in this country by which stupid, arrogant, and greedy remains at the top. Creative, hardworking, and honest no longer rises to the top uncorrupted. Without unforeseen upheavel, the shining city on the hill is no more.
Oregoncharles
Robert Scheer knows damned well that Obama was not "socially conscious" when he argued, ad nauseum, that progressives should very early on, without so much as a demand or a deal, climb onto the perennial FraidyCats Bandwagon for Democrats. There was no serious examination of Obama's dismal, albeit short, record in the Senate, nor did Scheer see a redflag when many of us did and were shining a very bright light on the massive contributions given to the Obama campaign from the very same people he's so eager to bail out now at the expense of We The People: banksters, pharmaceuticals, healthcare industry, defense ...
In a debate with Ralph Nader, Scheer was confronted: "What will it take, where do you draw the line in support of the Democrat Party? Scheer's answer: "The war."
Well, Mr. Scheer. You can now drop your affiliation with the Democrat Party and sign up for ... the Greens perhaps? because "the war" is not ending anytime soon. And you can't say you don't know that. Trying to rationalize this one will lose you a lot of credibility. You drew the line. We all heard you. The next article you write has to be your personal announcement to QUIT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY! as Cindy Sheehan has done and many other wise voters and writers. Let's get started on building a true grassroots Party of the People for god's sake! Aren't we tired of being jerked around by these Pelosi, Clinton, Obama types?
The corporate, two-party strategists will jerk you around til your head spins. The time is long past now to support people and third parties who are fed up with the ongoing scam!
Oregon Charles:
Would you mind using the correct name of the Democratic Party, rather than the one concocted by Tom Delay to use in a disgusting TV ad?
Rainborowe
Oregoncharles
Yes I would mind.
The Democrat Party is not Democratic and I refuse to refer to them as such. I consider it a talking point. I couldn't care less what Tom Delay does or says. I make my own decisions. Sorry if it offends your sensibilities. No offense intended.
I don't see how using the noun rather than the adjective changes the meaning; it just doesn't make grammatical sense.
Rainborowe
Unfortunately, we have a choice between two servants of the oligarchy in the Reps and Dems, or a 1% candidate of a third party. Let's not argue about it. It doesn't matter. If we change our system to pro-rep or instant runoff, we'll have a chance. Othwerwise, electoral politics is an exercise in frustration.
David
"The BusinessWeek report, compiled for the magazine by sister company Standard & Poor's Institutional Market Services, listed former Citigroup Inc. Chief Executive Officer John Reed as the top-paid executive in the country, with an compensation package worth $293 million, followed by Citigroup Chairman Sanford Weill, whose 2000 pay package came out to $224.9 million."
That's one company. One year. Two people. $518 million! And the taxpayers have to bail them out?!
Another example of what's wrong. Ross Perot had to show his income and taxes in 1992 and 1996. Over $2 billion invested. Over $200 million annual income. Paid little over 7% federal tax! And it was taxpayer money that made him rich in the first place.
The golden rule: them with the gold make the rules.
"What is involved here is an extreme case of government-condoned "moral hazard" offering outrageous compensation to the superrich for screwing up royally."
And the "moral hazard" continues with the removal of "mark-to-market" accounting rules which allows financial and other institutions to lie about the true value of their balance sheets. In light of this, the big question is: Who are the players in the current uptick in the stock market? Are the bankers using TARP and other money to manipulate the markets in an effort to convince the sheeple that all is well?
"That past attempts to curtail the growth of government and profits of bankers have proved futile is not cause for despair; for the end of central banking and centralized government will not come from without, but from within. Their end will be a result of their own doing, not of others." - Darryl Schoon
This is an interesting article by Schoon: http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/schoon/2009/0429.html
Sioux Rose
GAIL: I believe you have hit the target. Although you are not necessarily fond of astrology, its basis of analysis goes back many centuries. When Saturn and Pluto negatively align (beginning in late October 2009, however the event may be anticipated by certain minor cycles that look rough in September) there are always major, global shortages. That event begins in autumn and holds well into 2010. We are HARDLY out of the woods. As intelligent economists point out, one cannot pay off debt with debt, and since what's largely being traded under the guise of derivatives holds NOTHING of any inherent value (rather bets against loans and scrambled mathematical concepts applied to large debt holdings) we are definitely watching a theatrical production aimed at MASS perception. The economic version of "depends what IS means."
"Has Timothy Geithner ever had lunch with a non-megamillionaire"?
Perhaps not, but people can figure out at least a few obvious things about other people's needs -- if they care to. Geithner does not work with this White House to level inequality or reduce iniquity, but to make them stable for the folks on top.