Bailout Watch: Bush's Subtle Scheme to Stop Obama Reforms

by: David Sirota

Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 12:51


In his first radio address as President-elect, Barack Obama made this strong statement:

"[We will] ensure that the rescue plan that passed Congress is working to stabilize financial markets while protecting taxpayers, helping homeowners and not unduly rewarding the management of financial firms that are receiving government assistance."

That's an important marker - this Financial Week story shows, the corporate community takes the declaration seriously. All of that is good news. As Naomi Klein ably shows, fixing the bailout is not just a piddling side project - if left the way it is, it could cripple the economy.

That said, it looks like the Bush administration is going to do everything it can to keep things just the way they are.

David Sirota :: Bailout Watch: Bush's Subtle Scheme to Stop Obama Reforms
Buried in the Washington Post's paean to George Bush's newfound commitment to transparency and bipartisanship, we get this nugget ascribing a more pernicious motive to the niceties:

Likewise, the administration is laying the groundwork for an unusual level of access to the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in attempts to stabilize the foundering economy. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Friday that Treasury is preparing office space that will allow Obama aides to sit alongside current dministration officials.

Fratto said such efforts are intended to send a signal that Treasury's approach will not change too abruptly when Obama takes office. (emphasis added)

There you have it - in newspaper print, no less. The current administration on record saying the objective of involving Obama's transition team in Treasury decisions is to try to coerce that team into backing off Obama's own promises (to use the Times' own phrasing) to abruptly change Treasury's current approach.

Now, I don't think for a second the scheme is going to fully work. Obama's not filling his first economic declarations with promises of bailout reform with the intent of allowing a humiliated Bush administration to stop him. I may be cynical, but I'm not cynical enough to believe that Obama goes totally flaccid on this issue. He saw the presidential exit polls showing the bailout bill is more unpopular than ever. And he clearly has the capacity to understand that a poorly executed bank rescue could destroy his ability to right the economy.

That said, anyone who has worked in government knows things are never black and white. When expectations are forged, subtle pressure administered, and devilish details written, it can be difficult to convert foundational principles into federal law, especially when you are effectively sharing power with another power player (in this case, the outgoing president).

So bottom line: The bailout, because it vests so much power in the White House, is certainly something to keep a close watch on during this transition and in the early months of the Obama administration. The incoming president will have near-dictatorial control to change the program any way he sees fit, without much input from Congress at all. But the outgoing president has that dictatorial control now - and is now on record saying he's going to try to use that control to try to preemptively tie the hands of President Obama.  


Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Bush wants Colombia Trade deal with it (0.00 / 0)
I was half asleep this morning but I could have sworn that George S. on This Week mention that Bush wants the Colombia Free Trade deal in with the stimulus package. Have anyone else heard about this?

True! (0.00 / 0)
David did another piece on it, "Good on You Rahm" - where Rahm completely dismissed the idea. I think they aren't going to be able to get away with that one!

We the People...participating in our democracy again!

[ Parent ]
Isn't going to happen, and here's why... (0.00 / 0)
First, there is this insight to our Rorschach President, and I think it is on target.  Here's hoping the blogs provide the same push for organization that they did with fund raising and push back during the election.

The second reason is this.  Plain and simple, there are no jobs.  They have to save the jobs in order to save the economy.  



They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  


Reading an awful lot into that (0.00 / 0)
Not that this isn't something to scrutinize fully, but I think you're reading an awful lot into that sentence from the article.

It's quite likely that this is intended to signal to the markets that the transition will be smooth, with few surprises. That's important because beyond stabilizing some balance sheets, creating a sense of confidence is one of the primary goals of the bailout. That won't work if people think the rules will suddenly reverse in another two months.

The problem now is there's so little transparency around the whole thing. I think Obama can do a lot by clearly setting the expectation that as soon as he's in charge, all the actions on the bailout budget will be immediately and completely public. That's good policy, and it should have some preventative powers right now, as the more shady temptations will be curbed by the (promised) disinfectant powers of sunlight.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


No he isn't When have these people ever acted i good faith? (0.00 / 0)
This may be the one time they are but ignore their evil at your own peril. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice........

[ Parent ]
Reading an awful lot into that (0.00 / 0)
Not that this isn't something to scrutinize fully, but I think you're reading an awful lot into that sentence from the article.

It's quite likely that this is intended to signal to the markets that the transition will be smooth, with few surprises. That's important because beyond stabilizing some balance sheets, creating a sense of confidence is one of the primary goals of the bailout. That won't work if people think the rules will suddenly reverse in another two months.

The problem now is there's so little transparency around the whole thing. I think Obama can do a lot by clearly setting the expectation that as soon as he's in charge, all the actions on the bailout budget will be immediately and completely public. That's good policy, and it should have some preventative powers right now, as the more shady temptations will be curbed by the (promised) disinfectant powers of sunlight.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


This is Happening Elsewhere too! (0.00 / 0)
I think this "tactic" Bush is implementing is just evidence of his stubborn reluctance to let go of the notion that Americans are still willing to gobble-up fear-propaganda so he can get his way. I've been watching it happen with military leaders in the Middle East too, posturing as if they say the right scary thing then Obama is going to relent or revert.

Obama has expressed and shown in many ways that he intends to listen and consider people from all sides of the issues; but the Bushites seem to be ignoring the fact that Obama along with that practicing that principal, he encourages critical thinking too!

On the other hand, I am very concerned about how much damage Bush will cause before he leaves office - that shoddy environmental measure is just one example. I'm guessing it's the level of permanence that these actions will actually have that it will come down to in the end. However, I have no doubt that members of congress have been re-energized, and they may have to play a BIG part in preventing disastrous, detrimental results.      

We the People...participating in our democracy again!


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