White House Official Throws Chris Dodd Under Bus To Protect Geithner and Summers

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 19:00


(Via Jane Hamsher) Back in mid-February during the fight over the stimulus package, Senator Chris Dodd was pushing for retroactive restrictions on bonuses paid to employees of financial companies receiving bailout money.  This measure, which would have applied to AIG bonuses, was opposed by both Wall Street and the Obama administration:

As word spread Friday about the new and retroactive limit -- inserted by Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut -- so did consternation on Wall Street and in the Obama administration, which opposed it.

Both Larry Summers and Tim Geithner personally asked Senator Dodd to remove the retroactive provision, because they thought it meant banks would give the government its money back:

The administration is concerned the rules will prompt a wave of banks to return the government's money and forgo future assistance, undermining the aid program's effectiveness. Both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, who heads the National Economic Council, had called Sen. Dodd and asked him to reconsider, these people said.

While Dodd refused to back down, at the request of the administration the retroactive language was stripped from the final bill during the conference report anyway. Now, a source deep inside the Obama administration is telling the press that the bonuses are Dodd's fault, and that Geithner is the one who is outraged:

Word of the bonuses last week stirred such deep consternation inside the Obama administration that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told the firm they were unacceptable and demanded they be renegotiated, a senior administration official said.(...)

The administration official said the Treasury Department did its own legal analysis and concluded that those contracts could not be broken. The official noted that even a provision recently pushed through Congress by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, had an exemption for such bonus agreements already in place.

Don't forget that Chris Dodd is the most endangered Democratic Senate incumbent in 2010, as he currently trails his Republican challenger Robert Simmons. Hard to imagine how Dodd's re-election chances will be helped by a senior White House source telling the New York Times that Dodd is to blame for the AIG bonuses.

More in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: White House Official Throws Chris Dodd Under Bus To Protect Geithner and Summers
So, let's recap what we learned about Geithner and Summers today (once again, mostly Geithner):
  1. We learned today that Federal Reserve Bank attorneys knew about the bonuses for months, and were looking for ways to block them.

  2. Last month, Senator Chris Dodd proposed legislation that would have stripped the bonuses in the past, present and future.

  3. Tim Geithner and Larry Summers both personally asked Chris Dodd to drop that legislation. He refused.

  4. The legislation was dropped during the conference report anyway.

  5. Tim Geithner claims that, after looking into it for months, he determined there was no way he could have stopped the bonuses. Larry Summers agrees.

  6. A senior White House source tells the New York Times that Geithner is ourtaged by the bonuses. However, the source notes that Geithner's analysis concluded that Chris Dodd, the most vulnerable Democratic Senator in 2010, is to blame for this because he wrote an exemption for AIG into recent legislation. This is even though Geithner and Summers both personally asked Dodd to drop legislation that would have retroactively stripped the AIG bonuses.
Now, some elements inside the administration have reached the point where they are placing blame for something Geithner and Summers did--block legislation that would have stripped the bonuses--on the person who wrote the legislation that would have stripped the bonuses. And that person just happens to be the most vulnerable Democratic Senators in 2010.

Glad to see that some senior administration officials value Geithner and Summers more than either Democratic Senate seats, or even more than honesty. There is a serious problem inside the Obama administration on this matter, and dismissals are needed to solve it.

In a related development, Republicans tied Democrats in the congressional generic ballot in one poll today, and took the lead in the other. I guess the new "Geithner uber alles" strategy isn't working out to well for Democrats.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This does not bode well (4.00 / 9)
for Geithner's next appearance before the Senate.

I hope Dodd takes this at least as seriously and personally as is warranted.


Who did AIG PAY OFF to get that beautiful bailout? (4.00 / 6)
The pay off...

Sen. Dodd was AIG's largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.

And who got the second most money from AIG?

Barack Obama.

$101,332.


[ Parent ]
Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing. (3.00 / 4)
"Whose bread I eat, his song I sing."

This ancient German proverb is formed on the same paradigm as many others; for example...

Wessen Frau du verführst, dessen Zorn muss du fürchten.

"Fuck the wife and fear the husband!"

But...

Fuck the public, and fear...

nothing!

But this concept was alien to medieval Germans, and all other peoples in the Age of Proverbs.

It only became proverbial after the two-party system was firmly established in the United States.


[ Parent ]
One of us is having (4.00 / 2)
trouble with reading comprehension.

AIG's  largest single recipient of campaign donations proposed legislation that would have stripped AIG's bonuses in the past, present and future, yes?


[ Parent ]
And somehow an exemption mysteriously appeared... (0.00 / 1)
I don't know how it happened, says Senator Dodd.

But somehow his provision mysteriously exempted bonuses to AIG executives.

.


[ Parent ]
Ah. Apparently (4.00 / 1)
it's you. I read the above and the mystery looked pretty clear.

[ Parent ]
One of us is having trouble with political comprehension... (0.00 / 0)
And that would be "Joel," who apparently believes anything that comes out of a major-party politician's lying mouth, as long as the mouth that's doing this particular bit of lying belongs to a Democrat.

But Democrats control the House and Senate, and the White House,  and if Democrats wanted to stop the AIG bonuses, those bonuses would be defunct!

Let me repeat that for the benefit of slow learners like "Joel"...

Democrats control the House and Senate, and the White House,  and if Democrats wanted to stop the AIG bonuses, those bonuses would be defunct!


[ Parent ]
And for some strange reason... (4.00 / 8)
Dodd supported the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which produced this whole calamity.

And which President signed that catastrophic legislation into law?

Bill Clinton.

And who was his point-man to push it through Congress?

Larry Summers.

But don't you just love all those innocent Democrats!


[ Parent ]
And if "Joel" could actually read... (0.00 / 0)
...he would have noticed that my original comment did not mention the bonuses, and concentrated on the bailout instead.

But why are you still talking about the bailout, when everybody else is talking about the bonuses?

Because the bailout is about 50,000 times as big as the bonuses!

The bailout now amounts to around $9 trillion, as David Sirota described it on Open Left.

The bonuses are around $160 million.

How many times does $160 million go into $9 trillion?

56,250.

The bailout is more than 50,000 times as big as the bonuses.



[ Parent ]
Blames?? (4.00 / 4)
The official noted that even a provision recently pushed through Congress by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, had an exemption for such bonus agreements already in place.

That is called ass covering, not blaming.  They are preemptively making sure no one blames them for getting rid of Dodd's amendment.  That is worth calling out, but I don't see how you could call that blame.


Sounds like blaming to me (4.00 / 10)
I appreciate your precision, but it still reads like blame to me. When I read it, it comes off as "Chris Dodd made exemptions for AIG, and Geithner is pissed about that." Sounds like blame.

[ Parent ]
I just don't see it (4.00 / 1)
I just don't see how the dots appear connected that way.  How is anger at AIG become anger at Dodd?  Obviously, if they look that way to you the a sure to look that way to others, but I don't get it.

I will say this, though.  In all reality Geithner, Obama and the rest are pretty frustrated right now.  Some of that is surely self directed, some outwardly.  It isn't hard to imagine being frustrated you can't stop this, upset that you stopped Dodd from stopping this, then frustrated further realizing that even that wouldn't have worked.  So perhaps that isn't all that far removed from what you suggest.

Funny how my first comment of the day suggested you were being too easy on Geithner and I feel like every other one has been defending him and Obama.

Anger is useful and really will push this country the right way, but it does seem to be a bit blinding as well, imho.


[ Parent ]
What I don't understand is (4.00 / 3)
what's frustrating them. Are they frustrated that they stopped Dodd because of the optics? Or are they actually looking at the reasons they stopped Dodd and wondering if maybe they grabbed the wrong end of the stick. In other words, if they prevented Dodd from stopping these bonuses ... are they accepting responsibility for doing so? Are they moving forward with new priorities in mind? I haven't seen either.

And as MadScientist says below, if we can retroactively immunize against warrantless wiretapping, can't we retroactively immunize against breaking a contract with a company bailed out by public funds?


[ Parent ]
You cannot change contracts retroactively. so the law would have (0.00 / 0)
been contested.  

[ Parent ]
Maybe not (4.00 / 7)
But you can grant immunity retroactively for illegally changing the contracts, right? If not, it's time for some communications companies to answer in court for allowing illegal wiretaps...

[ Parent ]
Not unless (4.00 / 4)
you are a credit card company.  


[ Parent ]
Yes you can change contracts retroactivley (4.00 / 4)
If you are going to make such blanket statements, how about offering some semblance of a justification. On what basis would the law have been contested?

Also, contract law is all about contesting contracts. If that is your reasoning, then following a contract is equally legally troubling, because that too can be legally contested.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel


[ Parent ]
A contract is only as binding... (4.00 / 7)
...as the ability one side or the other to enforce it.  There are plenty of contracts that are broken every day for all sorts of reasons.  Some contracts are declared invalid because they are unenforcable, illegal or unconscionable.

[ Parent ]
Most People Don't Go To Court to Enforce Them (0.00 / 0)
which is why many contracts never get enforced.  My guess is that this group would have banded together and sued.  I am in the camp that we should have said no and dared them to sue even though I am not convinced the govt could have won.  

[ Parent ]
Jonathan Turley of GW Law Was on Countdown and Agreed With You (0.00 / 0)
He thought AIG probably would have been forced to pay the bonuses in court.  He also thinks the tax clawback proposals will probably not pass legal muster.

I don't doubt that the lawyers told the Obama Admin that they were over a barrel.  The problem is they completely missed the political side of the equation as policy wonks and lawyers many times do.  

This was clearly a politically explosive matter and while the govt might well have spent millions or tens of millions on legal fees and lost, the Obama Admin would have been much better off going that direction.  The perception that they basically gave up is what they are fighting now and that is a big problem.


[ Parent ]
Ironic (0.00 / 0)
taxpayers are angry about wasting taxpayer money, but the better political solution for the Obama administration would have been to spend MORE taxpayer money than just handing out the bonuses would have cost.  

[ Parent ]
You're technically right (4.00 / 3)

 But either way Dodd takes the hit. And either way it's less-than-excellent news for Democrats.

 And the optics suck no matter how you granularize things...  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
The Optics Are The Problem (0.00 / 0)
I don't doubt the lawyers told them the Admin was over a barrel and would have lost in court.  They might well have lost in court but politically they would have been much better off going that direction.  Now they look like they gave up which is why people are pissed.

[ Parent ]
Does anybody still think Obama's a political genius? (4.00 / 11)

 He will bitterly cling to Geithner and Summers forever, even if it brings on another 1994 next year. Which will cripple his presidency and make it even harder to get the good parts of his agenda passed.

 He's not dumb, so I'm sure he understands this. So the alternative explanation is that he doesn't care.

 Which is even worse.
 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


May be because this is beginning to look like a manufactured outrage? (4.00 / 2)
Who was Secretary of Treasury last year? Who is the Federal Reserve Board Chairman?  Geithner sucks but lets not forget that Paulson and Bernanke were just as-if not more-responsible for this mess. You guys are playing into the hands of the rightwing and media. Since December the media, Republicans, Democrats and Geithner knew about this but now we know about this. GTFOH.

 


[ Parent ]
You may be right on the facts... (4.00 / 15)

 ...but the perception, the optics, are absolutely terrible for the administration. It's not like the media is going to be helping much here.

 The number-one political priority for the Obama administration should be preventing Republicans from latching onto populist anti-corporate sentiment -- a space the Democrats used to OWN before succumbing to the DLC pied pipers. And the Democrats are absolutely not getting that.

 It's not like Geithner and Summers haven't been giving the Republicans plenty of ammunition...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
I won't argue that this was handled poorly. (0.00 / 0)
They should have said that there's nothing that they could. They should have simply said that they will look at every legal avenue to rescind those contracts.

[ Parent ]
Obama hasn't delivered what the people demanded (4.00 / 13)
which was change.

Summers was SecTreas when Glass-Steagall was repealed.

Geithner is a Bernanke understudy.

To quote Christian Bale: "What don't you get about it?"


[ Parent ]
And who was the head of the NY Fed? .. (4.00 / 5)
Who was Secretary of Treasury last year? Who is the Federal Reserve Board Chairman?

Geithner was the second most powerful Fed person after Bernanke


[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
but that doesn't  mean that he was the mastermind of TARP when he had two men who more say in policymaking.

[ Parent ]
Um no (4.00 / 6)
Getihner was intimately involved with the creation of the Paulson Executive Wealthcare Program (TARP). He was at all the meetings. He was on the conference calls, many of which violated ethics rules, since they allowed CEOs to essentially determine the nature of their "bailout." Indeed, his own TALF is hardly different from Paulson's plan, so this isn't change at all, much less something we can "believe in."

I appreciate your devotion to the administration, but it was readily apparent all along that Geithner and Summers were both horrible choices. Yet, Obama hired them anyway.

He has to take responsibility for it. That's his job. The best thing he could do is fire both of them,  before things get even uglier... and it will. Obama is getting bad advice and he's starting to look rather corrupt in the process. If he doesn't make some changes, his situation will only deteriorate from here.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850


[ Parent ]
My outrage is not manufactured. (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
What? (4.00 / 1)
Please point out where the blame is laid on Dodd. That's only in your imagination. It is not in the article.

I'm not sure why this is (4.00 / 4)
hard to understand.

"It's the exact equivalent of my son saying, 'I couldn't help scribbling on the wall. Even Sara couldn't help scribbling on the wall.'

He knows his did something wrong, and he's trying to blame-share with Sara.


[ Parent ]
Open Left has really fallen down today (4.00 / 1)
I suggest you delete every diary from today and pretend it never happened.

Co-sign they are letting their dislike of Geithner get in the way. (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Good idea (4.00 / 14)
While we're at it, let's delete Geithner's confirmation and pretend it never happened as well.

If the financial industry magically becomes solvent in the next 6 months, I will be as happy as anyone. But nobody has a good idea how that will happen without a complete restructuring under government control - something that Geithner has adamantly opposed so far. Whether or not the administration is really trying to pass the buck to Dodd, the fact is that the administration's actions over the last few months have tread very lightly around the financial industry - "we can't attach too many strings to the bailout funds, otherwise they might not take it!!!!"

Why should the Government be bribing the industry to take government bailout funds? If these companies are in a position to refuse the bailout, then they ought to refuse it. If they aren't in that position, they are essentially bankrupt and either Congress, Treasury, or a judge should be deciding which of their creditors to pay and at what rate.


[ Parent ]
This relates to my point (4.00 / 2)
Geithner is supposed to be there because he knows where the bodies are buried. The test of his effectiveness is how he can put forward regulations that prevent this sort of thing from ever happening again, but most of the public will not be able to evaluate them. The public can evaluate if the rest of the economic program is working.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

[ Parent ]
A lot of people left this site (1.00 / 4)
if you ever mention Chris Bowers' or David Sirota's name to a group of Democrats, they'll usually either say "who?" or roll their eyes...really it doesn't matter what OpenLeft says.  

[ Parent ]
Man this is just the definition of trolling (4.00 / 1)
If it's so meaningless, why are you here?

[ Parent ]
Just passing through (0.00 / 0)
I actually haven't been for months and probably won't be again after tomorrow.

But, yes, in the grand scheme of things, OpenLeft is meaningless  


[ Parent ]
Hey Chris! (3.56 / 9)
Do you still think I'm wrong to say that Obama will own this AIG debacle because of his selection of Geithner and Summers?  These are inside Wall Street guys and the fix is still in.  Paulson and Bernanke got the "bailout" ball rolling last fall, and Geithner, Summers and Bernanke are keeping the faith.  There is only one game going one here, spin it for as long as you can.  Obama has been bought and paid for and he had to select these guys.  It was THE quid pro quo to his financial backers.  Until these guys are gone, Obama will have no economic credibility and his first term agenda is in serious jeopardy.  To see it any other way, IMHO, is naive.  

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

I'm not sure the quid pro quo theory is correct (4.00 / 4)
Very smart guys like RonK predicted Obama would have neoliberal economic policies right out of the Chicago School of Economics over a year ago. There is no quid pro quo if nothing was traded, if the Obama administration sticks to its core values. We can ask why people gave Obama close to $1 billion, and why a stunning number of wealthy people maxed out, but this does not necessary mean favors were traded, more likely, people supported the candidate most likely to advance their pet policies out of the gate.

[ Parent ]
Fair Point. (4.00 / 5)
I guess I heard my own thoughts in "Change you can believe".  And I must have assumed that the "failed economic policies of the Bush era" automatically eliminated neoliberal economic policies from this administration.  

Maybe Obama rubbed elbows with Friedman and Stigler during his short stint at U of Chicago.  It doesn't matter.  The problems we face are evident to us all.  There is an abundance of informed, reasoned opinion about how to assess and deal with this crisis.  Yet this administration's economic team stands almost alone in its course of dealing with it.  They consistently take the Wall Street first philosophy.  I call it quid pro quo, but I suppose it could just be called appreciation.  A rose by any other name ....

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis


[ Parent ]
Well ALL had our own thoughts (4.00 / 1)
on "change you can believe in"

[ Parent ]
As I said a month ago (0.00 / 0)
both of our Senate seats in CT are in peril. Dodd's problems are pretty well known now, and of course Jodi Rell could steal Lieberman's seat in 2012.

Considering CT is one of the most liberal states out there, this is a pretty big problem. We've stolen some Senate seats in deep red territory and the GOP would love nothing more than to return the favor.


You Guys Keep Forgetting Obama's First Veto Threat (4.00 / 2)
He threatened to veto any measures by Congress that placed restrictions on the use of the second release of bailout funds.  Several Democrats wanted to make usage of the money more transparent and directed towards homeowners. http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

His threats were aimed toward (4.00 / 1)
Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Evan Bayh.  

[ Parent ]
Stripped in Conference? (0.00 / 0)
Who did the stripping? Somebody must have wanted it stripped or at least acquiesced. It certainly wasn't anyone in the House, was it?

Wait -- who stripped in conference? (4.00 / 1)
Was it on C-SPAN?

Does stripping in congress violate any ethics rules, or is it protected as free speech?

Have they considered using this as a strategy against filibusters? Any number of Republicans might be ready for cloture after a good strip routine....


[ Parent ]
This rage must be followed by action tomorrow (0.00 / 0)
I'm telling you, everybody get out there tomorrow and protest vehemently with signs calling for geithner and summers to resign (http://takebacktheeconomy.org/).  this outrage must be followed by action or else they will never respect/fear it.  This must be followed by action, or they'll just pat us on the head and tell us what a great country this is becoz we have the freedom of speech ... but no effect on anything.

Z


The demonstrations are not tomorrow, they are Thursday (4.00 / 1)
obama is doing his cool act right now ... acting like everyone is overreacting.  this is a ploy and test for us. they will continue acting like it is no big deal until we make it a big deal by getting out and being heard and being disruptive.  this movement against these crooks ... that obama has apparently decided to ally himself with becoz they got big money ... needs some some synergy and this is our opportunity.  So, I urge everyone to read my previous post and get out there on and demand change ... or otherwise we will not be taken seriously and continue to be marginalized.  We need to create change not listen to someone pontificate about it whose obviously got no damn intention of bringing enough of it about.

Z


[ Parent ]
Question on Dodd (0.00 / 0)
I thought he announced he wasn't seeking another term in the Senate when he decided to run for President and moved his family to Iowa.  When did he change his mind?

Dumb (0.00 / 0)
How did he think people in CT were going to react to his moving his family to Iowa?  He should have stuck with his original decision.



[ Parent ]
if his numbers don't recover (0.00 / 0)
by mid-2010, he should announce that he won't be running. Let a Democrat who can win take the seat.

But if I was him, I'd assume the populist mantle and do everything possible to shut down these bonus-happy crooks and pass new regulations to prevent this crisis from happening again.

But if Dodd's actions since October are any indication, I'm not sure if he's smart enough to do the right things. His heart's in the right place, but he was one of those folks who bought the Paulson line without hesitation and has failed to push hard for nationalization.

At least with nationalization, we could control bonus payments and fire worthless employees and executives.


[ Parent ]
Easy answer... (0.00 / 0)
...the media took a small action of the oddities of campaign finance as a "declaration of intent" they should broadcast as certainty.

Dodd converted his re-election campaign fund into his Presidential campaign fund, to do so you must cease any "re-election campaign activity" and close that door completely...until you end the new campaign anyway.  Similar actions were taken by Clinton, Obama and Biden, as well as Brownback and McCain.

Make sense?


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search