Bloomberg takes a look at Obama’s “dream” team of economics “experts” and doesn’t see much to be hopeful about:
Take a good look at some of the 17 people our nation’s president-elect chose last week for his Transition Economic Advisory Board. And then try saying with a straight face that these are the leaders who should be advising him on how to navigate through the worst financial crisis in modern history.
First, there’s former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Not only was he chairman of Citigroup Inc.’s executive committee when the bank pushed bogus analyst research, helped Enron Corp. cook its books, and got caught baking its own. He was a director from 2000 to 2006 at Ford Motor Co., which also committed accounting fouls and now is begging Uncle Sam for Citigroup- style bailout cash.
Two other Citigroup directors received spots on the Obama board: Xerox Corp. Chief Executive Officer Anne Mulcahy and Time Warner Inc. Chairman Richard Parsons. Xerox and Time Warner got pinched years ago by the Securities and Exchange Commission for accounting frauds that occurred while Mulcahy and Parsons held lesser executive posts at their respective companies.
Mulcahy and Parsons also once were directors at Fannie Mae when that company was breaking accounting rules. So was another member of Obama’s new economic board, former Commerce Secretary William Daley. He’s now a member of the executive committee at JPMorgan Chase & Co., which, like Citigroup, is among the nine large banks that just got $125 billion of Treasury’s bailout budget.
There’s More
Obama’s economic crew might as well be called the Bailout Bunch. Another slot went to former White House economic adviser Laura Tyson. She’s been a director for about a decade at Morgan Stanley, which in 2004 got slapped for accounting violations by the SEC and a month ago got $10 billion from Treasury.
That’s not all. There’s Penny Pritzker, the Obama campaign’s national finance chairwoman. She was on the board of the holding company for subprime lender Superior Bank FSB. The Chicago-area thrift, in which her family held a 50 percent stake, was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2001. The thrift’s owners agreed to pay the government $460 million over 15 years to help cover the FDIC’s losses.
Even some of the brighter lights on Obama’s board, like Warren Buffett and former SEC Chairman William Donaldson, come with asterisks. Buffett was on the audit committee of Coca-Cola Co.’s board when the SEC found the soft-drink maker had misled investors about its earnings. Donaldson was on the audit committee from 1998 to 2001 at a provider of free e-mail services called Mail.com Inc. Just before he left the SEC, in 2005, the agency disciplined the company over accounting violations that had occurred on his watch.
Telling Stories
So, by my tally, almost half the people on Obama’s economic advisory board have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both. Do you think any of that came up in the vetting?
No one should be surprised by this. He is a man with little experience in politics, no executive experience, and now will take the reins of the entire country. With so little experience he has to rely on his judgment of people….we’ve seen how well that worked out.
And now we get further proof of his lack of judgment.
But alas, while we may be in for a rough four years he is pretty much handing us the message for the upcoming elections. No wonder James Pethokoukis believes the man is going to be a one term President:
Just “one and done” for Barack Obama’s presidency? Recall an ominous passage in his otherwise joyous election-night speech: “The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term.” Maybe the tone was suggested by one of Obama’s economic advisers like Jason Furman or Austan Goolsbee. It’s the battered economy, after all, that will be President Obama’s greatest domestic policy challenge. As such, it will also be his greatest political challenge, too — but one where failure may already be baked into the cake.
That’s right, the “O” in “Obama” may stand for “One Term.” For starters, there’s a strong chance that when voters head to the polls on Nov. 2, 2010, they likely will still think the economy is awful. Not much debate about that. (Good chance the Democrats’ two-election winning streak comes to an end.) And while voters may be somewhat patient for two years, patient for four years? Really unlikely. If history is any guide at all, voters may still be terribly cranky about the economy when they cast their ballots on Nov. 6, 2012 and thus likely choose the 45th president of the United States — be it Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal or some other Republican without “Bush” for a last name. Once again a “change” election for an impatient America. The same bad economy that doomed John McCain in 2008 will have sunk Obama, as well.
He goes on to detail the 90-91 recession:
…The nation’s gross domestic product fell 3.0 percent in the fourth quarter of 1990 and 2.0 percent in the first quarter of 1991. But even after the economy started expanding again, the unemployment rate kept rising until it hit 7.8 percent in June of 1992 vs. a low of 5.2 percent in June 1990. Recall that in January of 1992, President Bush, running for reelection, told New Hampshire voters that the economy was in “free fall” even though the economy was later shown to have grown at a robust 4.2 percent during the first quarter of that year.
See, it takes a while for people to really perceive that an economy has turned around, especially if unemployment is high. Bill Clinton won the 1992 election on the economy (“it’s the economy, stupid”) even though GDP had been growing for six full quarters. According to Gallup, 88 percent of Americans thought the economy was “fair” or “poor” in October 1992 with some 60 percent saying the economy was “getting worse.” Two years later, it was the Democrats turn to feel the brunt of widespread economic anxiety as the Republicans captured both the House and the Senate. Even though the economy had then been growing for 14 straight quarters and the unemployment rate was down to 5.8 percent, 72 percent of Americans still thought the economy was “fair” or “poor” and 66 percent though the nation was headed in the wrong direction.
That’s right 3 1/2 years after the 1990-91 recession ended, the economy was still weighing negatively on voters and hurting the incumbent political party. Is it so hard to imagine, then, that three or four years from now voters will also be unhappy about the state of the economy and blame the party in power, the Obamacrats?
And then there’s this: The 2008-09 recession may actually be far nastier than its 1990-91 twin.
Sure, Reagan turned around the recession he inherited…and turned it around quickly. But he did it with tax cuts…something we will not get with Obama. Rather we will have our taxes raised, government spending through the roof, and our economy will be in shambles. A socialist President will not fix the economy and his honeymoon with the American public may be short lived.
See author page
What can I tell you. Like attracts like. So we should not be surprised that he associates with crooks.
“That’s right, the “O” in “Obama” may stand for “One Term.”
Or maybe it stands for a big ZERO… lol
@Craig: i want to thank you for taking an interest in our nation, you are very kind.
i thinnk we should have mike photoshop obama onto a $0 bill, that would be a riot.
obama is surrounding himself with a crumbling foundation that he has no chance of building from. when the walls fall down, the conservatives will be there to clean up the mess once again.
“@Craig: i want to thank you for taking an interest in our nation, you are very kind.” (Luva)
Thanks Luva. I’ve always admired that Great Nation. I am passionate about American’s politics and History. I read so many good books about it. And I was thinking of moving to the States since I have many friends in New-York. But my project will be postponed till this idiot moves out of his POTUS position. So maybe in 4 years I will join you all, that is if he doesn’t screw up your country by that time. No way would I move there with him as a POTUS… NO WAY!
Any of you know it alls have any suggestions for who SHOULD be on the economic team given the terms you seem to wish be laid out> That is: no connections to any failed financial institutions or perceived economic failures.
That’s a mighty long list you got there partners.
Luva: I don’t have the Obama Zero bill, but I did find this Obama $3 bill:
If Obama follows through with what he has promised in terms of economic issues and gives Reid & Pelosi their stated demands regarding the economy then we are guaranteed an economic collapse in this country.
Congress has been in a full press since Jan 07 to destroy the economy for their personal political purposes. Me thinks they got carried away and did more damage than they can fix in the same time frame it took to destroy it. Maybe when enough people (taxpayers) figure it out we will get to see a firing squad in action. I volunteer, will provide own gun and ammo.
That’s how they’re going to fix the economy. They’re going to use the age old practice of cooking the books!
The economy will be like a Hollywood starlet–pretty on the surface, but a facade hiding how corrupted and decayed it is beneath.
My prediction is that we will see multiple scandals where dems looted the govt and used their power for personal profit. You know, just like the FM/FM situation.
Thank you Douchebama.
@Mike’s America: you rock mike. remember billy bucks? i do and i thought they were so funny. thank you for the dollar, i needed the laugh. watched show on the end of days on history and it freaked me out, as always. the bail out bunch will screw us way more than we know and they will hida as much as they can.
Dandelion;
I wouldn’t have chosen a bevy of what is beginning to smell like a lobbyist free-for-all. But whaddaya expect when you put Congressmen into the oval office. I too find his choices a bit disturbing. I would have traded them all for Trump. “The Donald” has a knack for comprehending the economy and business sense that doesn’t play games. He was the only one I heard correctly predict that what would become the bailout would force gas prices down.
This is just temporary. As Curt says, we will rise again!
That kind of opinion is what happens when people forget Carter/Clinton and the MSM is the DNC propaganda wing.
When people elect the same ones who caused the problem to fix the problem, what do you expect…. Congressional approval is what, 19% under Democrats. How exactly does that translate to the hopey changey 59% who think they can now do better.
bill,
We didn’t “elect the same ones who caused the problem to fix the problem”, we elected more of the same ones! 19 more in one house and 5 more in the other!
The liberal press has brain-washed Americans! They are now leaning left more now in greater numbers than any other time in our history.
We need to act fast; we need to take back our country!
Some of us will be ready:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-guns12-2008nov12,0,57478.story
Why We Should Break Up Companies, Not Just Bail Them Out
Everyone is talking about whether we should bail out the mega-corporations and if so, what kind of constraints should be put on the use of that bailout money.
None of the of the solutions I’ve heard fix or even address the problem.
The problem is that the Federal Government has not followed a fundamental business principle – don’t let any one customer become so big that losing it threatens the survival of your company (or in this case, your nation). No responsible company lets this happen, but the federal government has never thought to even address it.
A simple but very profound change to the Anti-Trust laws would solve this problem going forward. The Federal Government should institute a new rule – if a company is so large or central to the economy that its demise would threaten the economic security of our nation, it must be broken up.
The problem isn’t that companies have acted greedily, stupidly, with incompetence or just had plain bad luck. The problem is that when some companies act this way or are hit with bad luck, they threaten the security of our nation. The smaller ones just go out of business, as a reminder to others to keep their house in order and don’t overextend themselves.
Our present knee jerk response is to bail out these big, greedy, stupid or unlucky companies and just move on. The only signal this throws is for smaller companies to become as big as possible as fast as possible without regard to greed, stupidity, or their own future, so that when they get caught thinking badly or with their hand in the cookie jar, the government will save them.
Any bailout we think is necessary right now should be tied directly to the breakup of these companies so they can never again threaten our national security, and as such, would never again require another bailout. Greed, stupidity and serendipity would take their victims and the rest of us could keep on going.
Some will say this is over-regulation of business by government – a form of socialism. “Let the free market determine how big a company gets.” (Hint: we don’t have a Free Market or we wouldn’t be talking bailouts.)
One of the basic purposes of government is to ensure the security of the nation. Making sure our economy is never again taken to the brink by the greed or stupidity of a few big companies is well within the purview of government.
Socialism is redistribution of wealth – bailing out individuals or companies that were greedy, stupid, incompetent or unlucky. If we don’t tie these bailouts to the breakup of these behemoths, it’s the corporate version of the Great Society all over again. We found out welfare didn’t work then, but apparently we’re going to have to learn that lesson all over again.
Chuck Blakeman
http://blog.teamnimbuswest.com
Obama has bad judgement?
Hmmmmm
Maybe. But how about in comparison to Bush Jr? Or even McCain?
I for one am much happier about Obama than any president I can recall.
a) Look how skillfully he is bringing together a bipartisan government — even when he doesn’t need to because he has a full Democratic govt.
b) His main misdeed from the press was being associated with left-wingers. Oooooh no! A black man can’t talk to lefties!!! Obama’s pastor actually believed that black people had been enslaved in the USA! And furthermore, his wife admitted that she had not always been proud of the USA. Shocking!
Here’s my 2 cents:
Bush is a traitor. He should go be tried for treason, and then go to jail or worse. Why?
a) War Crimes — torture of prisoners is illegal all around the world, and was in the USA before Bush Jr became president and allowed this law to be bypassed. Then he authorized invasion of a foreign country under Operation Iraqi Liberation (acronym = OIL) and the leader was tried and executved — but Iraq had done nothing against the USA, and had in fact been a chief receiver of military aid (ie weapons) from the USA.
b) Betraying the USA — Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened, but did nothing. He was expecting a complete coup, and it failed, but he resumed leadership anyway. And then, while all flights were grounded, Bush gave the Bin Laden family a free flight to Paris. When the USA is attacked, is THIS the first thing the chief should do — deport the suspect’s family???
c) Incompetence & Negligence — Hurrican Cathrina was a botch, thousands died. Who is responsible? The executive, not Brown or anyone else.
d) Exposing US operatives — Valerie Plame was exposed by Bush’ govt. Frankly, I think this is a minor offense consider a-c above, but it is a clear violation of law.
e) Wiretapping w/o FISA Court permission — this is also a clear violation of the law, but not as big of an issue either.
So maybe Obama will be a bad president.
Personally, I doubt it.
But perhaps the question is will Obama be as bad of a president?
Donald Trump said Bush Jr is the worst president in history. No executives would shake his hand at the G8 Summit. Around the world, he is accused of being a war criminal, and inside and outside of this country he is mentioned as an example of incompetence.
Is Bush Jr the symbol you really want for the USA? A ridiculed incompetent oaf who struggled for a C-average, bungled all of his business endeavors, is known to have a drug problem and responded by becoming a religious zealot, and dodged any true military service? I think Bush Jr’s ONLY virtue is uniting the left wing and making the American people pay a deep and painful price for electing incompetent leadership.
rekzkarz.com
Irrational rants like rekzkarz on both sides is one reason why I’m not part of either party – there’s no arguing with such emotion based rants. But I’ll ignore that and try –
For one thing, defending one unknown future President with a past/present one you don’t like isn’t a good way to build up your guy. Usually it’s by telling all the positive things your guy has done that demonstrate how well he will do in the future. An argument based on “he’s not as bad as some other guy” is very weak, but when their is no known history for your guy, I suppose this is all you’ve got – but it’s really weak.
Bush will likely go down as the most socialist president in American history to date with all the bailouts he (and the democratic congress – as usual, neither party is going to be able to pin this solely on the other) is authorizing. Obama should be grateful. Bush is greasing the skids for a continued socialist entitlement give-away-based government that ensures we all work as hard as possible to become victims somehow so we can get a piece of the entitlement pie.
Here’s the most irrational thing in this Obama-mania (and admittedly rekzkarz didn’t say this directly, I’m just guessing he is on board with this based on his rant) – “Big business is full of greed, corruption, and is out of control (I agree with this). Therefore (and this is the insane response), we want to give the biggest business in America (government) even more money to fix the problem.” Huh? What makes that big business better able to solve the problem than the other big businesses?
Businesses aren’t immoral or greedy. They are in fact amoral and without the ability to act in any conscious way. People can be immoral or greedy, but not businesses. What make the people in the government any less greedy or immoral than any other people in any other big business? Are they somehow different? Only in one way. They have even LESS motivation to get it right. If enough people get ticked off at a business, they can kill it by not buying. I was in the Federal Government for six years and the sense of both entitlement and immunity from consequence is intoxicating.
Bush created a much larger government than he inherited (and Clinton had already expanded from his predecessor). Obama’s solution is to take the biggest business in America and make it even bigger, but somehow we’re not supposed to worry about that.
Big business is evil, but the biggest one is wonderful. Irrational doesn’t begin to describe it.
Rant away…
rekz, what color is the sky in your world?
“War Crimes — torture of prisoners is illegal all around the world”
Nope. Not true.
“Betraying the USA — Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened”
Nope. Not true.
“Incompetence & Negligence — Hurrican Cathrina was a botch, thousands died”
It’s Katrina. The bulk of the incompetence and negligence lay directly at the feet of former LA Gov. Blanco and N.O. Mayor Ray Nagin.
And as far as anyone can determine, no amount of government intervention can prevent hurricanes.
“Exposing US operatives — Valerie Plame was exposed by Bush’ govt.”
Nope. Not true again. Plame was “outed” by journalist Robert Novak. You can’t even get your facts straight.
“Wiretapping w/o FISA Court permission”
Try again. The wiretaps were allowable under law.
“No executives would shake his hand at the G8 Summit.”
That’s a false statement.
rekz, you’re an example of what is wrong in this country. People attacking the President unjustly with false claims. You accepted wild claims of those suffering from BDS and took them for gospel without bothering to check their validity. You are a gullible fool, plain and simple and you rendered your whole post null and void with all the bogus claims.
Keep your two cents, son. You need it more than I.