March 19, 2009
Public anger over the AIG bonus controversy has risen to the point where no politician wants to be complicit in any government action to further reward those characters, widely regarded to have helped cause the economic crisis. Worse yet, bailout fatigue is finally taking its toll on the consensual psyche. On March 18, Chairman Ben Bernanke announced the decision of the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee (FOMC) to print up another trillion dollars to buy back long-term Treasury bonds and to purchase some of those toxic, mortgage-backed securities. The most immediate beneficiaries of this news were the usual suspects: the banks. Citigroup saw its stock value jump over 22% on Wednesday. Bank of America made a similar gain and Wells Fargo’s stock rose over 17%. As John Dickerson reported for Slate, President Obama is walking a tightrope by resonating with the public outrage over the behavior of Wall Street’s investment banks, since too much taxpayer anger could cause him trouble down the road:
Administration aides know this outrage can go too far. If the president stokes too much outrage, he’ll have a tougher time asking for more tax money for future bailouts of banks and other industries. But, as it was explained to me by an administration adviser, it is impossible for the president not to show that he’s outraged. If he didn’t, he’d lose credibility, which would eventually hurt his ability to sell future bailouts and his budget.
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner continued to take heat from members of Congress, as he is increasingly perceived as the individual who failed to prevent the villains at AIG from being rewarded $165 million for their role in causing the financial meltdown. As Rick Klein reported for ABC News, two Republican Congressmen (Connie Mack of Florida and Darrell Issa of California) have called for Geithner’s resignation. Klein’s article went on to point out:
Several congressional aides said members of Congress remain unlikely to press for Geithner’s ouster in large numbers. At the very least, according to one Democratic leadership aide, members are likely to wait for Geithner to present his comprehensive bank bailout plan before passing judgment.
Once Turbo Tim does finally present “his comprehensive bank bailout plan” (a/k/a the Financial Stability Plan), he will validate his new-found reputation as a lackey for the Wall Street establishment. If you think he’s unpopular now … wait until that happens. Harold Meyerson’s March 18 op-ed piece in The Washington Post is emblematic of the criticism the new administration faces as it attempts to assimilate Geithner-ism into its economic recovery strategy:
But Geithner’s indulgence of bankers’ indulgences is fast becoming the Obama administration’s Achilles’ heel. The AIG debacle is the latest in a series of bewildering Geithner decisions that threaten to undermine the administration’s efforts to restart the economy. So long as it’s Be Kind to Bankers Week at Treasury — and we’ve had eight straight such weeks since the president was inaugurated — American banking, and the economy it is supposed to serve, will remain paralyzed. The Geithner plan to restart the banks provides huge taxpayer subsidies to hedge funds, investment banks and private equity companies to buy the banks’ toxic assets without really having to assume the risk. That’s right — the same Wall Street wizards who got us into this mess, using the same securitization techniques that built mountains of debt within a shadow financial system that remains unregulated, are the saviors whom Geithner has anointed to extricate us — with our capital, not theirs — from the mess that they created.
A more plausible solution would be for the government to assume control of those banks that are insolvent, as it routinely does when banks go under. It could then install new management, wipe out the shareholders, take the devalued assets off the banks’ books, restart lending and restore the banks to private control at a modest profit for the taxpayers. There may be reasons that Geithner’s plan makes more sense than this one, but if they exist, Geithner has failed to explain them.
Nothing could more seriously undermine President Obama’s “big bang” strategy (of simultaneously tackling the problems of energy, health care, climate change and education) than Geithner’s inept approach to solving the nation’s economic problems. In fact, it appears as though the growing “bailout fatigue” is already taking its toll. As Ben Smith and Manu Raju reported for Politico, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh’s 15-member caucus of conservative and centrist Democrats seems convinced that it will be impossible to adequately address the nation’s financial ills while pursuing such an ambitious, multi-front agenda. Worse yet, as the Politico article pointed out, if the administration is seen as mishandling the economic crisis by catering to the interests of Wall Street, the public could become unwilling to trust the new administration with such a far-reaching scheme, involving so many costly programs:
But many lawmakers made clear Tuesday their view that voters’ willingness to trust Obama on some subjects will be determined by their view of how well he handles the economic crisis. That judgment, in turn, will be shaped by whether the White House effectively responds to public outrage over large bonuses to executives at bailed-out American International Group.
“Unless we can instill some trust back with the American people that these people who brought on this problem, who risked our 401K funds and hard-working people’s money, aren’t going to be able to profit from their folly, I think we are at risk of losing their trust,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).
If Rush Limbaugh still wants to see President Obama fail in advancing the “big bang” agenda . . .
He must have a lot of love for Tim Geithner.
The Battle Over Bernanke
January 25, 2010
Ben Bernanke’s four-year term as chairman of the Federal Reserve ends on January 31. There is presently no vote scheduled to confirm President Obama’s nomination of Bernanke to that post because four Senators (Bernie Sanders, D-Vt.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C. and David Vitter, R-La.) have placed holds on Bernanke’s nomination. In order for the Senate to proceed to a vote on the nomination, 60 votes will be required. At this point, there is a serious question as to whether the pro-Bernanke faction can produce those 60 votes. A number of commentators have described last week’s win by Scott Brown as a “chill factor” for those Senators considering whether to vote for confirmation. Ryan Grim of The Huffington Post put it this way:
James Pethokoukis of Reuters explained the situation in these terms:
At The Hill, Tony Romm reported:
If Bernanke is not confirmed, he will continue to sit on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors because each Fed Governor is appointed to a 14-year term. Donald Kohn, the vice chairman, would serve as the interim chairman until Bernanke’s successor is nominated and confirmed.
The forces pushing for Bernanke’s confirmation have now resorted to scare tactics, warning that dire consequences will result from a failure to re-confirm Bernanke. Senator “Countrywide Chris” Dodd warned that if Bernanke is not confirmed, the economy will go into a “tailspin”. An Associated Press report, written by Jennine Aversa and carried by The Washington Post, warned that a failure to confirm Bernanke could raise the risk of a double-dip recession. At The Atlantic, Megan McArdle exploited widespread concern over already-depleted retirement savings:
Not to be outdone, Judge Richard Posner issued this warning from his perch at The Atlantic:
I guess that these people forgot to mention that if Bernanke is not confirmed:
A plague of locusts shall be visited upon us,
The earth will be struck by a Texas-sized asteroid,
An incurable venereal disease will be spread via toilet seats,
The Internet will vanish, and . . .
Osama bin Laden will become the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
At the Think Progress website, Matthew Yglesias pondered the issue:
Beyond that, as Sudeep Reddy and Damian Paletta explained in The Wall Street Journal:
Min Zeng of The Wall Street Journal filled us in as to what else we can expect from the FOMC this week:
Meanwhile, the battle against the Bernanke confirmation continues. Mike Shedlock (a/k/a Mish) has urged his readers to contact the “undecided” Senators and voice opposition to Bernanke. Mish has also provided the names and contact information for those Senators, as well as the names of those Senators who are currently on record as either supporting or opposing Bernanke.
I’d like to see Bernanke lose, regardless of the consequences. The rationale for this opinion was superbly articulated by Senator Jim Bunning during the confirmation hearing on December 3. If you’re not familiar with it — give it a read. Here is Senator Bunning’s conclusion to those remarks, delivered directly to Bernanke:
Amen.