The Administration's verbosity is under bi-coastal attack today from two former Bush factotums.
Bush I speechwriter Peggy Noonan complains in the Wall Street Journal: "As the federal government claims ever greater powers, its language has become vague to the point of meaningless and meaningless to the point of menacing."
On his Los Angeles Times blog, Andrew Malcolm, who was once Laura Bush's press secretary, offers an "Obama Era Language Update," explaining how "terror" and "drug war" have been euphemized into "man-caused disasters" and "a public health issue requiring treatment more than enforcement."
Of the latter, Malcolm predicts "vaccinations against drive-by shootings and muggings."
Noonan meanwhile under the title, "What's Elevated, Health-Care Provider?" drubs Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for using expressions like "accessing affordable quality health care" instead of "going to the doctor."
After eight years of W's mangled simplifications like "axis of evil," the Obama crew's wonkery may indeed be fair game (Treasury Secretary Geithner recently took on a tutor in plain speaking), but "menacing" is more than bit much.
It was Ms. Noonan, after all, who had the first Bush saying, "Read my lips--no new taxes," and we all know how well that bit of straight talk worked out.
Showing posts with label Tim Geithner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tim Geithner. Show all posts
Friday, May 15, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Obama's Used Car Salesmen
I wouldn't buy one from Larry Summers. I might take a chance on Tim Geithner but have a good mechanic check it out first.
As the President's top two economic advisers keep offering us financial vehicles for the rocky road ahead, they just don't inspire confidence in survivors still stunned by the crash of those in which the two of them had so much involvement over the past decade.
Summers tell us the Administration's new toxic asset plan will create "better functioning capital markets," but Paul Krugman points out:
"Leave aside for a moment the question of whether a market in which buyers have to be bribed to participate can really be described as 'better functioning.' Even so, Mr. Summers needs to get out more. Quite a few economists have reconsidered their favorable opinion of capital markets and asset trading in the light of the current crisis.
"But it has become increasingly clear over the past few days that top officials in the Obama administration are still in the grip of the market mystique. They still believe in the magic of the financial marketplace and in the prowess of the wizards who perform that magic."
Just so. The Treasury Secretary's Congressional testimony about the proposal to regulate non-bank financial institutions reflects a curious ambivalence, recognizing damaging excesses but hesitating to ban much of Wall Street's gambling.
In answer to a question, Geithner said that. "my own sense is that banning naked credit default swaps isn't necessary and wouldn't help," that it is "terribly hard" to differentiate between a legitimate hedge and a pure speculative bet.
The recent stock market surge only adds to the unease. After weeks of sheer panic, are the insiders only grabbing at the chance for cashing in on the huge but temporary infusion of free money?
With so much at stake, the Obama Administration might help the case for its recovery proposals by letting us hear more from Paul Volcker and other respected Wall Street outsiders in a situation where credibility is critical.
As the President's top two economic advisers keep offering us financial vehicles for the rocky road ahead, they just don't inspire confidence in survivors still stunned by the crash of those in which the two of them had so much involvement over the past decade.
Summers tell us the Administration's new toxic asset plan will create "better functioning capital markets," but Paul Krugman points out:
"Leave aside for a moment the question of whether a market in which buyers have to be bribed to participate can really be described as 'better functioning.' Even so, Mr. Summers needs to get out more. Quite a few economists have reconsidered their favorable opinion of capital markets and asset trading in the light of the current crisis.
"But it has become increasingly clear over the past few days that top officials in the Obama administration are still in the grip of the market mystique. They still believe in the magic of the financial marketplace and in the prowess of the wizards who perform that magic."
Just so. The Treasury Secretary's Congressional testimony about the proposal to regulate non-bank financial institutions reflects a curious ambivalence, recognizing damaging excesses but hesitating to ban much of Wall Street's gambling.
In answer to a question, Geithner said that. "my own sense is that banning naked credit default swaps isn't necessary and wouldn't help," that it is "terribly hard" to differentiate between a legitimate hedge and a pure speculative bet.
The recent stock market surge only adds to the unease. After weeks of sheer panic, are the insiders only grabbing at the chance for cashing in on the huge but temporary infusion of free money?
With so much at stake, the Obama Administration might help the case for its recovery proposals by letting us hear more from Paul Volcker and other respected Wall Street outsiders in a situation where credibility is critical.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Obama's Biggest Bet and Ours
We are back in the casino now, ready to play a hand that could make us whole again or leave us broke for a long time to come.
After huge bets on bailouts and stimulus plans, we are about to go all in with $1 trillion to buy bad loans and toxic assets from ailing banks in partnership with private investors.
As Obama pushes our chips into that pot, there is a sinking feeling that the game may be rigged for the Wall Street players around the table who have been hoarding theirs, waiting for a time when the odds are with them.
It's unnerving that the President's chief advisers, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, have been house men so long that their vision of the game may be inadequate to the needs of a nation that is gambling real money--rent money and what could put food on millions of family tables--on the outcome.
The Public Investment Corporation to be announced tomorrow sounds like a rehash of ideas that have been floating around for months and been picked apart by economists and knowledgeable financial operators. It has the look and feel of another Wall Street heads-I-win, tails-I-break-even proposition.
Before taking the plunge, we should hear the case for temporary and/or partial nationalization of the banks that has been pushed aside for political reasons, which amounts to leaving our fate in the hands of the Congressional clowns who have been showing us who they are in the past week.
As we try to clear our heads of AIG bonus madness and other distractions, let's take the time to get this one right. We have been betting everything on Obama's judgement. There is too much at stake to make the wrong call.
After huge bets on bailouts and stimulus plans, we are about to go all in with $1 trillion to buy bad loans and toxic assets from ailing banks in partnership with private investors.
As Obama pushes our chips into that pot, there is a sinking feeling that the game may be rigged for the Wall Street players around the table who have been hoarding theirs, waiting for a time when the odds are with them.
It's unnerving that the President's chief advisers, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, have been house men so long that their vision of the game may be inadequate to the needs of a nation that is gambling real money--rent money and what could put food on millions of family tables--on the outcome.
The Public Investment Corporation to be announced tomorrow sounds like a rehash of ideas that have been floating around for months and been picked apart by economists and knowledgeable financial operators. It has the look and feel of another Wall Street heads-I-win, tails-I-break-even proposition.
Before taking the plunge, we should hear the case for temporary and/or partial nationalization of the banks that has been pushed aside for political reasons, which amounts to leaving our fate in the hands of the Congressional clowns who have been showing us who they are in the past week.
As we try to clear our heads of AIG bonus madness and other distractions, let's take the time to get this one right. We have been betting everything on Obama's judgement. There is too much at stake to make the wrong call.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Baby-the-Banks Bailout
Making some amends for her newspaper's hyping yesterday, Maureen Dowd, bless her salty tongue, today pistol-whips Tim Geithner's baby-the-banks bailout plan:
"The problem is that the 'lost faith' that Geithner talked about...cannot be restored as long as the taxpayers who are funding these wayward banks don’t have more control.
"Geithner is not even requiring the banks to lend in return for the $2 trillion his program will try to marshal, mostly by having the Fed print money out of thin air, thereby diluting our money, or borrowing more from China. (When, exactly, can China foreclose on us and start sending us toxic toys again?)
"There’s a weaselly feel to the plan, a sense that tough decisions were postponed even as President Obama warns about our 'perfect storm of financial problems.' The outrage is going only one way, as we pony up trillion after trillion."
This cautious approach is in striking contrast to the Obama Administration's all-in attitude toward the stimulus bill.
“If folks are still unemployed," the President told a Florida rally yesterday, "then you guys won’t employ me next time I come down here...I expect to be judged by results. I’m not going to make any excuses. If stuff hasn’t worked and people don’t feel like I’ve led the country in the right direction, then you’ll have a new president.”
Putting himself on the line this way, why is Obama unwilling to take on the banks more directly, as some of his advisers apparently wanted him to do?
Geithner's cautious, sketchy "plan" even sent Wall Street into a swoon. No one expects government to control the banks forever, but as long as taxpayers pour trillions into their greedy little hands, someone should be making sure they are keeping their sticky fingers clean.
"The problem is that the 'lost faith' that Geithner talked about...cannot be restored as long as the taxpayers who are funding these wayward banks don’t have more control.
"Geithner is not even requiring the banks to lend in return for the $2 trillion his program will try to marshal, mostly by having the Fed print money out of thin air, thereby diluting our money, or borrowing more from China. (When, exactly, can China foreclose on us and start sending us toxic toys again?)
"There’s a weaselly feel to the plan, a sense that tough decisions were postponed even as President Obama warns about our 'perfect storm of financial problems.' The outrage is going only one way, as we pony up trillion after trillion."
This cautious approach is in striking contrast to the Obama Administration's all-in attitude toward the stimulus bill.
“If folks are still unemployed," the President told a Florida rally yesterday, "then you guys won’t employ me next time I come down here...I expect to be judged by results. I’m not going to make any excuses. If stuff hasn’t worked and people don’t feel like I’ve led the country in the right direction, then you’ll have a new president.”
Putting himself on the line this way, why is Obama unwilling to take on the banks more directly, as some of his advisers apparently wanted him to do?
Geithner's cautious, sketchy "plan" even sent Wall Street into a swoon. No one expects government to control the banks forever, but as long as taxpayers pour trillions into their greedy little hands, someone should be making sure they are keeping their sticky fingers clean.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Bank Rescue: Tim Geithner's Times
The Treasury Secretary is announcing his plan to save the banks this morning, but the New York Times has it all before he says a word.
A front-page story reports that "Mr. Geithner, who will announce the broad outlines of the plan on Tuesday, successfully fought against more severe limits on executive pay for companies receiving government aid.
"He resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives and wipe out shareholders at institutions receiving aid."
On the editorial page, David Brooks, without bothering to tell us how he knows, offers Geithner's thinking about the process with direct quotes:
"The key, he says, is to create 'massive, sustained and substantial macroeconomic policy' that would pump capital into markets to get them working again. The heart of his program is a series of public-private investment funds...One would acquire toxic assets. One would foster consumer and small-business lending. 'There’s a lot of private capital out there that wants to come in. It just can’t get the financing,' Geithner insists. The new programs would encourage private investors, and then once the markets are unfrozen, would 'get out as quickly as possible.'”
With all this inside information, it's not surprising that Brooks finds "Geithner’s plan is huge but also disciplined. It’s designed by someone aware of government’s limitations."
If Treasury's attempt to make its new bank rescue plan seem tempered rather than toothless is half as successful in the real world as it already is with the newspaper of record, we can all stop worrying without bothering to listen to what Geithner himself has to say today.
Who knew it was going to be this easy?
A front-page story reports that "Mr. Geithner, who will announce the broad outlines of the plan on Tuesday, successfully fought against more severe limits on executive pay for companies receiving government aid.
"He resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives and wipe out shareholders at institutions receiving aid."
On the editorial page, David Brooks, without bothering to tell us how he knows, offers Geithner's thinking about the process with direct quotes:
"The key, he says, is to create 'massive, sustained and substantial macroeconomic policy' that would pump capital into markets to get them working again. The heart of his program is a series of public-private investment funds...One would acquire toxic assets. One would foster consumer and small-business lending. 'There’s a lot of private capital out there that wants to come in. It just can’t get the financing,' Geithner insists. The new programs would encourage private investors, and then once the markets are unfrozen, would 'get out as quickly as possible.'”
With all this inside information, it's not surprising that Brooks finds "Geithner’s plan is huge but also disciplined. It’s designed by someone aware of government’s limitations."
If Treasury's attempt to make its new bank rescue plan seem tempered rather than toothless is half as successful in the real world as it already is with the newspaper of record, we can all stop worrying without bothering to listen to what Geithner himself has to say today.
Who knew it was going to be this easy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)