Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Rubin Con Goes On
The corruptions of journalism were on full display when CNN's Fareed Zakaria turned to Robert Rubin this past Sunday for advice on how to fix the financial crisis that he, as much as anyone, caused. I was trapped on a treadmill in front of an overhead television and unable to turn the thing off in time to avoid this assault on my mental and physical health.
As a result I was forced to hear Rubin, Bill Clinton's treasury secretary, insist that he always favored regulating toxic derivatives and is therefore not at all responsible for the ensuing economic meltdown. He was responding to the sole critical question from the CNN host, who quoted a question by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: "Did all the senior members of the [Obama] economics team have to be protégés of Robert Rubin, the apostle of financial deregulation?" Unfortunately, Zakaria just rolled over when his guest simply lied in response:
"First of all, I am not the apostle of financial deregulation. Quite the contrary. On derivatives ... I developed a deep concern about the systemic problem that was created. When I was back at Goldman Sachs, it was a concern I had ... a concern I had when I was in government. And in fact, when I wrote my book in 2003, I was so concerned about it that I actually included that discussion in there."
Zakaria ended the show recommending it as his book of the week: "He wrote a great memoir that covered his two distinguished careers, both ... on Wall Street and in Washington. ... It was written with Jacob Weisberg, a great writer, the editor of Slate, and the two men weave a compelling tale that has many lessons for today."
To be charitable, I will assume that Zakaria has not actually read that book, which omits any discussion of the radical deregulation legislation that Rubin ushered through Congress and got the president to sign. Bill Clinton is on record stating that he got bad advice from Rubin and his handpicked successor, Lawrence Summers, on derivatives regulation: "On derivatives, yeah, I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take it," Clinton told ABC News last April 10.
Rubin and Summers were responsible for forcing Brooksley Born out of the Clinton administration because as chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission she had the temerity to suggest regulating the mortgage-backed securities that eventually proved to be so toxic. Instead, Rubin and Summers pushed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Clinton signed into law in his last month in office, categorically exempting those suspect derivatives from any government regulation.
By then, Rubin had moved on to a $15-million-a-year job at Citigroup, which became a prime exploiter of the subprime housing market. As a result of its massive involvement with toxic securities, Citigroup, with Rubin in a leading role until early 2009, had to be bailed out by the federal government with a $45 billion direct investment and a guaranteed Fed protection for $306 billion in potentially toxic assets.
Citigroup, a merger of the old Citibank and Travelers insurance company, was made legal only by the Financial Services Modernization Act, which Rubin backed while treasury secretary. Then, in one of the most egregious conflicts of interest in U.S. history, he went to work for the new bank, which took advantage of the changes in the law to buy up the infamous subprime lenders, beginning with Associates First Capital. The Economist magazine wrote of that purchase that "it extends Citi's already huge credit card operation to a lucrative new niche (price insensitive, if default prone, borrowers)" and questioned whether investors would see Citi's bold new venture "as something smart, such as ‘evolved credit extension,' or something seamy such as loan-sharking."
Rubin was a major proponent of the firm's seamy expansion into the mortgages that proved to be toxic, and by 2007 Citigroup was the second-largest subprime servicer, after the only slightly more infamous Countrywide. As The New York Times pointed out on Nov. 22, 2008, after a decade of flattering portraits of the man, finally acknowledging Rubin's role in Citi's disgrace: "The bank's downfall was years in the making and involved many in its hierarchy, particularly [CEO Charles O.] Prince and Robert E. Rubin, an influential director and senior adviser."
There is much more, and I haven't even touched on Rubin's shameful role in Enron's shenanigans. Enough said, though, to question not only Zakaria's journalism but, far more important, Barack Obama's leadership in first turning to Rubin as a key campaign adviser and then putting his disciples in charge of the U.S. economy.




30 Comments so far
Show AllRussia has a fire, China has a flood and the USA has a flying flood of evil smelling words to deal with.
Guess which is expressive of collapse.
Best Cryptic Post of the Day Award Winner!
Good callout on Zakaria. The man can be very astute in analyzing complex global trends so his failure to challenge Rubin - on an issue which Zakaria clearly understands - is disappointing.
As for Rubin, the article does a pretty decent job of cataloging his primary failures. Sadly, even though Scheer concludes by noting that he's only scratched the surface on Rubin, we're going to get a lot of posters whining that the article doesn't deal with their favorite points in definitive detail.
q
You mean the same Zakaria that pushed for the invasion of Iraq?
Yes, yes, very astute in analyzing global trends... bullshit.
The bullshit can be found in your nonsense posts, Tiredofbeingatroll.
Yes, Zakaria was astute enough to abandon his initial support of the war to become a severe critic of the Bush administration and its conduct of the war.
q
Gosh - one might think that your unwarranted post was bullshit and trolling. What with being unwarranted and all.
So you admit Zakaria was a voice leading us into the war, and somehow when it went south, he's admirable for finally covering his ass. You have such high standards!
Or maybe you liked the war in the first place?
De-Countrify Israel Now.
Your characterization of Zakaria's positions on the Iraq War is false.
q
I saw exerpts of that interview and got that sick feeling in my stomach, wondering just HOW anyone can continue to give credence to the masterminds behind the economic collapse. Thank you to Robert Sheer for giving me the impetus to contact Zakaria in hopes that my complaint MIGHT be heard.
Good question. Let's ask the tens of millions of people who voted for (and STILL SUPPORT!!) Obama as a "reformer" campaigning on CHANGE ... while he surrounded himself with the architects of our latest economic disaster.
Time to cross the Rubin con: Alea jacta est!
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Thanks once again to Robert Scheer for giving us an increasingly rare thing: true journalism.
The Rubin con? Funny.
Yes,
Thank you Robert Scheer.
Thank you for researching and informing us of the utterly disgraceful way we are treated by those in positions of power. We seriously need to understand what "terrorism" really is about. Those who wish to do our country harm are living in our midst. Is there any foreign national that can be proven to have done as much harm to the citizens of the U.S. as Robert Rubin? The real terrorists enjoy our government's support. Now, how do we deal with terrorists? Intellectually, Zakaria is aiding and abetting. But then, so are most of us who pay taxes and vote.
it's a little more complicated than just that Clinton or Obama happened to make a bad choice of advisors and then, mea culpa, just happened to get bad advice from them. Clinton, Obama, you've sold your soul to these interests and look what you got in return. I hope there is a hell because an eternity of regret would not begin to pay for the evil you have unleashed.
Maybe Mr. Rubin will return to sandwich making and save the nation.
I watched the interview and my opinion of Mr. Zacharia dropped a notch from it's rather high position..."high" relative to most American journalism, which is not saying much.
Mr. Rubin is a perfectly evil man. The number of lives he has destroyed is stratospheric, from America to Russia, to Latin America, to the Pacific rim. He is a one man holocaust manufacturer. But, alas, there can not be more than one holocaust, can there?
Yikes, that stings!
But, how true.
This nation crossed the Rubincon a long time ago.
(I couldn't resist either).
et tu brute?
Oh, so that's why the Los Angeles Times fired Robert Scheer.
As far as Zakaria is concerned, I got his number a while ago. This is no temporary lapse in judgement, if you have listened to him for awhile, as I did (no longer) you would have seen where he was going.
As for Rubin, remember how Obama trotted him out as an economic advisor earlier in his campaign? When the stuff really started to hit the fan with Citi, he sort of faded into the background. Then, do you remember the fluff that arose when Wells Fargo "stole" WaMu from Citi right after the Treasury announced that failing banks debts could be written off as tax breaks for the acquiring bank? I forget all the details, but at the time it was clear the deal was made specifically to save Citi and that's why Treas. and the Fed were so pissed when Wells Fargo swooped in under the radar before the deal could be consummated. That attempt may well have been a reward for Rubin's complicity.
I also thought at the time that Obama's choices for Treas. Sec. were picked by Wall Street. Rubin would have been their first choice, but by that time it was clear that his involvement with Citi made him too hot a potato. Summers would have been choice number two, as Rubin's protege, but Summers had his own baggage, what with his comments on women and his suggestion that developing nations were "under polluted", so a confirmation hearing would have been a lalapalooza. But he was necessary for Wall St, so he was put in the admin. in a position that required no confirmation. Geitner was third choice, as another acolyte. He had his own obvious issue with taxes, which undoubtedly was pointed out, but Wall St. said - "Nope, if we can't have Rubin or Summers, it has to be Geitner. You figure out how to get him confirmed." So Obama did, sweating out the embarrassment at almost the same time as he dumped Daschle because of his tax issues.
I am no economist or politician, but all this stuff was rather obvious, even at the time. The fact that Rubin is being trotted out again means that the powers that be may still have a use for him and they figure enough time has passed that, with our short American attention spans, we will have forgotten. The fact that they are using Zakaria, who, from what I gather from some of the above posts, apparently has some cache with lefter leaning folks, to rehabilitate him, is interesting ....
i also remember thinking before the election, and desperately e-mailing a couple of progressive media to get them to really explore this, that the whole financial scandal that was unfolding, with gov't complicity, deal making and coverups would make Teapot-Dome look like a day at the beach, but because Obama was in with that crowd, progressive media didn't really want to rain on his parade ....
Remember how, as Senator, and Dem. nominee, he not only voted for TARP but actively influenced those members of the House Black Congress. Caucus, like Edwards and Cummings, who had voted NO a couple of days before, to switch their votes? And how he, as Pres. elect, when, while refusing to use his position to condemn the Israeli blitzkrieg on Lebanon, used it to help push through the OK for the second set of funds for TARP just before his inauguration, so he could, when the inevitable backlash hit, blame it all on Bush?
This guy Obama was busy betraying his base long before he was even elected, and in fact, I think, if anybody ever really investigated all the financial scandals that have been swept under the rug since '08, one would find he knew more than a little about what was going on, and his support of TARP was his assent to covering it up ....
Good point. I was thinking DN at the time, but I've gotten a bit frustrated with it ....
Mainstream journalism is merely a platform for lies and propaganda. Actions and their consequences better define truth. Plug your ears and open your eyes. And maybe sniff around a bit. It's hard to get the stink out of bull shit
to all quicksteppers of the world. Anyone who originally supported these immoral and illegal invasions in response to the false flag, is part of the problem. A pea brain watching the implosions knew the man in the cave wasnt behind the fall of the towers. No investigation for a year and a half, get real. Then came the propaganda push, for 18 months. Worldwide protests be damned. We only export war and weapons, and Zakaria backs this. Only corporate whores and fools back the new empire. Welcome to the U.S of Israel.
It will be interesting to see who runs against Obama. If the Demo's can get Palin on the ballot, Obama will win the next election; then he can wrap up the final destruction of the USA. I know Palin is a Republican, but the elections are Machiavellian contests.
And if Palin runs, half the people who read CD will vote for Obama, saying that he is better than Palin and company. "Palin is too dangerous."
It is always the same story.
Good Grief.
Nader only runs when no one else will step up to the plate. And It's never too late until the last vote is cast ...
Underfunded? Yeah, but he stretches a dollar farther than one would have thought possible - to have gotten on the ballot in enough states to win is truly a remarkable feat ....
Voting may not change anything, but that doesn't mean it couldn't - depends on who you vote for ....