Share

Mortgaging the White House

by: Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
President Obama walks alone down the hall leading away from The East Room after his press conference on his 100th day in the White House. (Photo: Getty Images)

    Finally, here we are at the end of this week of a hundred days. As everyone in the Western world probably knows by now, this benchmark for assessing presidencies goes back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who arrived at the White House in the depths of the Great Depression.

    In his first hundred days, FDR came out swinging. He shut down the banks, threw the money lenders from the temple, cranked out so much legislation so fast he would shout to his secretary, Grace Tully, "Grace, take a law!" Will Rogers said Congress didn't pass bills anymore; it just waved as they went by.

    President Obama's been busy, but contrary to many of the pundits, he's no FDR. Our new president got his political education in the world of Chicago ward politics, and seems to have adopted a strategy from the machine of that city's longtime boss, the late Richard J. Daley, father of the current mayor there. "Don't make no waves," one of Daley's henchmen advised, "don't back no losers."

    Your opinion of Obama's first 100 days depends, of course, on your own vantage point. But we'd argue that as part of his bending over backwards to support the banks and avoid the losers, he has blundered mightily in his choice of economic advisers.

    Last week, at a hearing of the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) monitoring the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner tried to correct AFL-CIO General Counsel Damon Silvers. "I've practiced law and you've been a banker," Silvers said. Never, Geithner replied, "I've only been in public service."

    We beg to differ. Read Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson's front-page profile of Secretary Geithner in Monday's New York Times, and you'll see how Robert Rubin protege Geithner, during the five years he was running the New York Federal Reserve, fell under the spell of the big barons of banking to whom he would one day help shovel overly generous sums of money at taxpayer expense.

    During "an era of unbridled and ultimately disastrous risk-taking by the financial industry," the Times reported, "... He forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Street's giant financial institutions.

    "His actions, as a regulator and later a bailout king, often aligned with the industry's interests and desires, according to interviews with financiers, regulators and analysts and a review of Federal Reserve records."

    Wined and dined at the Four Seasons, and in corporate dining rooms and fine homes by the very men whose greed and judgment helped bring on the Great Collapse, Geithner became so much a favorite of the Club that former Citigroup chairman Sandy Weill talked with him about becoming the bank's CEO.

    According to Becker and Morgenson, "Even as banks complain that the government has attached too many intrusive strings to its financial assistance, a range of critics - lawmakers, economists and even former Federal Reserve colleagues - say that the bailout Mr. Geithner has played such a central role in fashioning is overly generous to the financial industry at taxpayer expense."

    The two reporters write that Geithner "repeatedly missed or overlooked signs" that the financial system was self-destructing. "When he did spot trouble, analysts say, his responses were too measured, or too late."

    In choosing a man to manage the bailout of the banks who's so cozy with its players, and then installing as his White House economic adviser Larry Summers, who in the Clinton administration took a laissez-faire attitude toward the financial industry which would later enrich him, the president bought into the old fantasy that what's best for Wall Street is best for America.

    With these two as his financial gatekeepers, President Obama's now in the position of Louis XVI being advised by Marie Antoinette to have another piece of cake until that rumble in the streets has passed on by.

    In fact, other Wall Street insiders - many of them big contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, and progressive in their concern for the public interest - privately are expressing serious concerns that Geithner, Summers and their associates are leading the president and America's taxpayers down a path toward further economic disaster.

    This week, as Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois unsuccessfully fought for a congressional amendment he said would have helped 1.7 million Americans save their homes from foreclosure, the senator told a radio station back home that, "The banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

    He could say the same of the White House.

  

»


Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program, "Bill Moyers Journal," which airs Friday nights on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

PPIP seems to have been a

PPIP seems to have been a mistake. Elizabeth Warren seems to have it right. But, I still support President Obama. Being human, he isn't perfect, but he's such an improvement over the previous administration that I am a strong supporter.

It's not too late for Obama

It's not too late for Obama to get rid of the banking industry foxes guarding the hen house that is the Treasury of the USA. All he need to do is fire them and replace them with consumer-minded individuals. Next, Durbin or someone else needs to introduce legislation making community banks and credit unions stronger, thereby breaking up the banking oligarchies.

Tell it like it is

Tell it like it is Bill! I've given up on Obama. We was hope-a-doped! Head for the lifeboats cuz the Titanic is going down. But remember it's Congress and Pelosi that could stop them too! Washington is owned by the thieves! Sad state of affairs for a world that needs so much help. This is a replay of the Great Depression cept me don't have a FDR.

My thoughts exactly. I love

My thoughts exactly. I love so much of what Obama is and does and stands for, but on Geithner and Summers I agree with Moyers and Winship. These two will turn out to be Obama's biggest mistakes.

i am afraid you may be

i am afraid you may be right. i am still waiting for the Social Security shoe to drop. Obama's advisors are known to favor bad plans. Unfortunately, everybody in the country, including Bill Moyers, last time I checked, has fallen for the Peterson Big Lie, and we will all stand there nodding and smiling while they "fix" Social Security. Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. It can pay for itself forever, with, at most, a 35 cent per week tax increase in any given year. Details hard to explain in a few words. But you owe it to yourself to find out more.

I have watched with growing

I have watched with growing concern the consequences of Obama's choices, hoping against hope that before the year was out, he would put the people's interests before those who have brought us to this sorry pass...He has so much going for him, our president, that it is sad to think that where he most needs to succeed, he has linked himself to failure.

My thoughts exactly, Bill

My thoughts exactly, Bill Moyers. What a disappointment! And it's not about "being human," it's about doing the right thing. He knows exactly what he's doing, and it is not right. I no longer support him, and I am angry.

Considering this comes with

Considering this comes with liberal signatures like Bill Moyers, not such a good view of the new management of recent economic affairs in Washington---hope results don't crumble hopes for better economic outcomes in the near future. E.L.

you're right "Anon"....he

you're right "Anon"....he does know exactly what he's doing....and he's counting on the dumbed down mesmerized masses to not recognize it even if they could see it......but then he panders to the poor who aren't really against socialism. After all they're the ones who'll benefit.....you can't take away anything from nothing, and freedom isn't really an issue, when you've never been able to experience it due to lack of funds. Ask anyone on welfare. They exist. That's all. Those are the people socialism will look good to, and there's so many of them- and their ranks are growing, until finally people will be begging for socialism, just to be able to exist.

The actions of the Obama

The actions of the Obama administration during this financial crisis are distressing. My disappointment in this President is only tempered by the frightening thought of having McCain, Palin, and Phil Gramm in charge. We have little choice under our present two-party system. Instant run-off voting, if initiated nationally, would give Americans a viable choice of a third party.

AMEN

AMEN

the prez & the congress have

the prez & the congress have turned current and future american taxpayers into indentured servants and slaves a revolt with more substance than the teabaggers is in order.

So now that Obama has been

So now that Obama has been revealed as a man of the bankers and not of the peoplpe -- or at least not as the man who would lead us from the wilderness and into the promised land -- should we not now be talking and organizing on behalf of a Kucinich or a Nader for the 2012 campaign (which of course will start in about October 2011, 2 1/2 years from now). These two always talked in crystal clear terms, no carefully chosen polit-jargon. If we wait until January 2012 when the media and two-party ruling class consensus will be well into the process of manipulating and vetting the candidates to assure "safe" candidates, it will be way, way too late. Kucinich and/0r Nader 2012. (And to those who will ridicule this, the parties and the president are all making their moves and taking future elections into mind as they speak and act. Should not we the people also?)

Bad luck choosing advisors?

Bad luck choosing advisors? Mr. Obama received spectacular support from Wall Street during his campaign (unlike Ron Paul, who WS hated). Appointing 'Secretary Fox' (Geithner) and company to head the 'Department of Chicken Welfare' (you and I are the chickens) while also appointing another ultra WS friendly Clinton, it all let us know from the get go that this President is as corrupt as all the presidents who came after JFK (who was shot shortly after introducing US Treasury notes backed by silver, which directly competed with Federal Reserve Notes - like those still in our pockets now - and which were withdrawn from circulation immediately after his death). It is time for us to demand a full audit of the Federal Reserve Bank - and not on Geithner's terms. Call your representative and ask them to support Federal Reserve Transparency Act H.R. 1207 before it's too late - we already have years of misery ahead, let's try not to make it generations.

Totally agree. Between

Totally agree. Between Goldman Sachs and the Fed, we are screwed unless the Fed is abolished and the banks allowed to die. No other course is available as our government must take back control of our money. Remember, the Fed cannot be audited. This tells you we have no control over our money. Any questions?

A valuable companion piece

A valuable companion piece to this Moyer/Winship piece would be Mumia Abu-Jamal's piece "Turning Point in History" posted today also. As you probably know Mumia is a U.S. political prisoner serving a life sentence and facing possible execution, pending a petition for rehearing before the Supreme Court. Mumia's piece can be read at http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3851

O yea, O yea! Mis guided,

O yea, O yea! Mis guided, mistaken or treacherous?

YEP. So far, not solving the

YEP. So far, not solving the real problem. Avoiding it like the plague instead and making it worse. Let's have a recall election and get Ron Paul or Kucinich or Cynthia McKinney or Barbara Boxer in there instead. If they can stick us with the Terminator here in CA by recall, can't we do it in Wasington? And while we're at it, let's recall a healthy majority of senators and congresspeople, too.

Transparency has over 100

Transparency has over 100 sponsors in the house. Obama and the cabal can't seem to hear the racket away from the red carpets. Nonetheless, house members come up every two years. Sponsoring moves to track the lost wealth would seem a good posture for these guys. For now, they may only appear to be hearing. It does not cost them to sponsor something they don't intend to allow. This bill could happen if circumstances and the ruckus become overwhelming. I see signs that people are going around governments, making odd arrangements across boundaries, to survive. The people charged to care for all the people seem to have little inclination to help a wider swath than their narrow circles of friends, relatives, and the usual constituencies. It's a sad state for a place that started with such hope. To see equality in action and community, you have to look up Bill McKibben's reports on Curitiba, Brazil. There have been good reports on some Brazilian companies as well. Inclusive culture carries over. It takes a long time for exclusive culture to notice the world has moved on.

I agree wholeheartedly... I

I agree wholeheartedly... I am so happy Obama is President... But, he is squandering a fantastic and great opportunity to build something entirely new, better and better grounded in economic/financially reality for ALL OF US... But, alas, he finds this tune playing in his mind all the time--- '''Can't We All Get Along'''... Its a great idea, but its not the stuff of BOLD LEADERSHIP and BOLD VISION...

He is uninterested in the

He is uninterested in the left. He made it apparent as soon as we got into office. He is a neophyte, albeit an arrogant one, who was blown away by the potential rewards of his office if he played by the rules.

I got a chance to hear Ralph

I got a chance to hear Ralph Nader speak during this latest presidential campaign and it was startling how much he disliked Obama. Most of us in the crowd were probably Obama supporters and didn't really want to hear criticism, but his point was that despite the talk about change, he still was in the hip pocket of corporations. Nader has often said that there's no real difference between the Repubs and the Dems which I've always taken with a grain of salt, but wouldn't it be nice to have him get some face-time on Bill Moyer's journal?

On 1314 king Phillipe IV (le

On 1314 king Phillipe IV (le Bel) of France attempted to erase the Knights Templar, the big bankers of the time. He rounded up as many as he could and tortured and killed them. I don't believe in this method of removal but I am going to read some more about the circumstances. I have always thought that the good king was too brutal but he may well have good reason to deal harshly with the bankers. Power corrupts.

You're on the right track

You're on the right track David just about a month ago I came to the conclusion that Ron Paul and Kucinich should run together

According to a Wall Street

According to a Wall Street Journal article of some weeks ago, the real cost of the bailout then was 8.5 trillion dollars, and rising. All given to those who caused this trainwreck. Consider what just one of those trillions would have achieved. 20,000 jobs at $50,000 a year each, for one thingβ€” and jobs that need to be done in alternative energy and infrastructure repair. Another trillion could have given us universal single-payer health care. Another would have given everyone free education, with lots of well-paid teachers, to Ph.D. level, with stipends. There is absolutely no reason, other than the greed and power of sociopathic bankers, why anyone should be homeless or hungry or uneducated. All this is obvious. Too obvious not to have been noticed by Mr. Obama, who is very bright. Too obvious even for the Congress, who surely couldn't be quite as stupid as their behaviour suggests. Too obvious not to be intentional. The strategy seems to be: engineer catastrophe, and watch the people cry out for a world government and a global currency: Very few very rich and supremely powerful people dominating the entire world. It's an insane-sounding hypothesis, but I find it much more plausible than the all-too-often repeated one that these very intelligent people, such as Mr. Obama, just couldn't think of any better way towards economic recovery than to give everyone's money, without any strings, to those who caused the trainwreck. I can no longer believe that Congress, the Federal government, or the States, are going to have the least interest in helping the victims of this cruel, and deliberate, impoverishment of the people. On the contrary, the government is now the predator of the people. If we are to avoid being dumped on by these loathsome parasites, communities of people will have to form subsistence units. Cenralised governments have shown themselves to be concerned with the interests of those who got them there. It'll be a new world tomorrow!

Dear Bill, how might

Dear Bill, how might President Obama be informed by your points in this article? I want to believe that he fundamentally cares about public service. Do you or someone you know not have access to the presidents ear? Does he not know, or, as you infer in your article, is he playing the politics of survival in the face of huge economic powers? I've thought for years that if Satan had a physical presence on earth, he's probably be running Citigroup et al. The current structure of capitalism is in my view fundamentally dysfunctional. As much as the government is working to prop it up, it must eventually fall of it's own weight. The salvation that I can see coming involves decentralization of power in many forms. I hope to see this occur in my lifetime in the most painless way possible, however, the way it's going, it's hard to envision a soft landing. Didn't I see your name as an attendee at the Bilderberg group a few years ago? With all the conspiracy hype surrounding that gathering, it's nice to see names like yours involved in the debate. I encourage you to put your ideas out in the most robust way possible. The theme of your article here strikes me as one of the most important issues of our time and I don't see these questions examined among mainstream media. Thanks for your good work. You have inspired me for much of my adult life. Jim Lawson- Honolulu Hawaii

Leopold Wolkenstein, who

Leopold Wolkenstein, who asks us to consider what just one of the trillions given to those who caused the trainwreck would have achieved says that one trillion would give us; "20,000 jobs at $50,000 a year each." Please... get the math right. it would give us twenty million jobs at $50,000 each. Wolkenstein is off by a factor of a thousand. His argument is a thousand times more powerful than he thinks it is

Moyer and Winship are right

Moyer and Winship are right in my wheelhouse I have been writing the same things. He is no FDR, nor is he a McCain or a Bush. He was a stop gap for me, but will probably be a one term president. He could have bought GM for the 611 million outstanding shares at $1.27-$1.50-$2.00 for between $1.6-2.2 billion and sold them at $4.70 for a fat profit. Roosevelt did something like that and under him the Treasury made some of it's spending back. Instead Obama paid $15.5 billion for stock he did not get worth 1/10 of that, as i said before the "loan." He would have been better off giving $2 billion to all citizens with a net worth of under $1 million and they would have spent the economy into a turnaround. he will have to throw more money away and has helped only the billionaires who messed it all up in the 1st place.

Give Obama a chance. He

Give Obama a chance. He inherited a mess eight years in the making and he's only been in office for 100 days. Do I like Geithner and Summers? No. But I trust that Obama has a better grasp of the financial situation than I do and I recognize that there are certain political realities that he has to deal with, i.e. that he needed people in those positions who could work with the existing structure. I would love it if he could wave a magic wand and all the mega-banks and corporations would disappear, and we'd have a more fair, just, and manageable financial system, without all the chaos that would ensue if all those institutions failed. Who would be hurt in a full-blown Depression? The little guy, of course. The bankers have funds stashed in Swiss banks. It's always the lower and middle classes that suffer. I think Obama knows this and is trying to make changes that won't sink the ship in the process.

I am very disappointed in

I am very disappointed in Obama, but my doubts started during the campaign when he voted to give the telecoms (another big lobbying group) retroactive immunity for illegally spying on Americans, which included a weak FISA law that ignores the fourth amendment; then went on to vote for the Wall Street bailout with no strings attached. After taking office, besides his bad financial team selections, he kept on Gates as Secretary of Defense, Bush's pentagon people and made warmonger Clinton Secretary of State. The last straw is his refusal to investigate and prosecute the crimes of the Bush administration. Especially telling, is his failure to investigate torture by the Bush administration. I expected these things from a McCain administration not Obama the agent of change. We voted for the lesser of two evils in the '08 election and did not know it, which is compounded by a do nothing excuse making Democratic Congress. This leaves us with a Democratic Party that is looking more and more like the corporatist Republican Party. I have had it with politicians putting the interests of corporations above the people. It amounts to taxation with pseudo representation. We desperately need to start a real Progressive Party.

It gets worse! Obama's

It gets worse! Obama's Treasury Department has refused to require all recipients of TARP funds to account for what they do with the money! Google "SIGTARP" (Special Inspector General for TARP) and look at his quarterly report for April, page 137. I'll bet Obama's Wall Street campaign contributors love his Treasury Department! SIGTARP has already opened about 20 criminal investigations (page 4).

Leopold Wolkenstein is very

Leopold Wolkenstein is very close to having it on the money, but needs to take his ruminations one more step. That step will get him to bringin' disaster capitalism back home. Naomi warned us, but the authorities-that-be told us not to listen to her "rants". And too many of us didn't. Instead of thinking of Big O as FDR, perhaps we ought to think of him as Hoover since that resemblance grows closer every day.

Obama duped a lot of

Obama duped a lot of self-absorbed, dippy, instant-gratification-addicted Americans with his shallow promisey rhetoric. Now they still support him although his actions place him more in line with the Bush administration than opposed. "He isn't perfect" is a good apology for the dippy population. "Maybe Geithner and Summers were a mistake" is an understatement of the most uninformed kind. "I love so much of what Obama is and does.." is, well, just dippy and paparazzi-ish, with no responsibility acknowledged or required for either side of the equation (love is not rational). Watching the deterioration of America, and banal march to the slaughter of it's sheep-people, is a real shit-fest for someone who was born here, taught America was a great and valuable contributor to the world, and how lucky we were to be here. Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Criticism of this sort, all

Criticism of this sort, all due respect to Mr. Moyers, depends on the assumption that Obama can restructure the world to his (read: our) liking, and on the further assumption that if he's not doing that he must be in the pockets of the evil bankers. Neither assumption is warranted. What makes any of you think Obama or any president has the power to re-structure world capitalism? We elected a President, not a god. The President is the all-too-human occupant of an office of enormous power, but that power is limited both structurally and practically. The President doesn't control the Fed. The President doesn't control the SEC. And the President can't just "take over" the banks because we want him to. Anyone that doesn't understand how limited his power is in this regard didn't pay attention to how the banks shot down bankruptcy reform last week. True restructuring of capitalism would require Congressional action of unprecedented independence. Obama is castigated as a "socialist" just for offering a Keynesian fiscal stimulus in addition to a tax cut, rather than the plutocracy's preferred duo of tax cuts for the rich and tax incentives to entrenched industries. Moreover, Obama has been righting the wrongs and undoing the damage of the criminal Bush "administration" at the amazing rate of 2-3 issues per week. And he has a long way to go. Even if he could restructure world capitalism, do you seriously think he could undo all the other damage if he tried to take down very structure of capitalism at the same time? Obama told us very clearly in his writings and in his speeches that his view of "change" was to find common ground on progressive issues and effectuate that. And that is exactly what he is doing. People who profess "disappointment" at Obama for not bringing "real change" are either self-delusional or didn't read past the headlines or listen to more than the sound-bites during the campaign.

This is disappointing.

This is disappointing. Moyers involvement in this article in particular. These authors regurgitate the criticisms of a NYT report, without adding a single new fact or even an illuminating new perspective, In sum, this article amounts to "piling on" and nothing more. If the authors and sympathetic readers expected Obama, Geithner, et al to focus on punishing the bankers, then they have no respect for the rule of law, because in most cases, the bad judgement and reckless greed were not illegal. If the mob expected the overextended financial institutions to be allowed to fail, as the Darwinian capitalists and libertarians would prescribe, then they wished upon their countrymen a tsunami of unemployment, hardship and (likely) starvation. If they wish utter transparency in the uses of TARP money, then they had better prepare for some portion of the Tsunami mentioned above, as investors and lenders abandon each bank in turn that is revealed in the full light of day to have shaky capital supports. If they wished for the government to dictate bank operations, forcing lending, limiting pay, then they had better prepare for a future when banks move their HQ and major assets offshore and offer only the most rudimentary branch services to US citizens and businesses. Look to banking in the Soviet Union or Cuba for the model of where state-directed banking would lead. The financial sector needs much better and more comprehensive regulation, for sure, but we cannot impose the threat of direct state management of bank operations and expect to have future economic opportunities to be financed as needed.

I think Obama meant well.. I

I think Obama meant well.. I served as a Republican for Obama.. I thought there would be a real change. Now I wonder about the value of getting a political. start in Chicago. I read about billions and trillions. Give me my money back from a developer,bank, and corporation fraud conspiracy in Chicago.

Yes, for Bill Moyers, who I

Yes, for Bill Moyers, who I have respected for years, this is a shallow article, merely summarizing the NYTimes article, with a few harsh comments about Obama not being FDR thrown in for good measure. I am grateful that Obama is more moderate than some of his progressive critics or we would have the global markets in a tailspin by nationalizing the banks, exerting executive powers that are beyond our national consensus. Obama's approach is more complex and it just might work.

What would be the reaction

What would be the reaction of President Obama?

I am very disappointed that

I am very disappointed that that Obama used taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street, his friends and pillagers of stocks, without regard for their culpability. The lesson will not be lost on me. Neither his party nor the corporate thieves of the far right will prevail next time around, if I can do anything about it. So much for democratic hopes which were DOA very early on. And so much for political options. Gabriel DesHarnais

Agree. These two guys are

Agree. These two guys are worthless to Obama. Hopefully he will realize this as soon as possible. He does seem to act decisively when he finally sees a loser.

Obama is a insecure man.

Obama is a insecure man. His heart may be in the right place, but he's crippled by the humble man's awe of the super rich. This isn't Kansas or Kenya anymore. The powerful beasts he is wrestling with now are creatures of a different stripe. He doesn't have the tools, cynicism or commitment to crush these rich flatterers. There is a part of Obama which loves these people. Idolizes and fears the rich folk. FDR knew them as his farting, burping, depressed, stingy relatives and neighbors, enabling him to see through their facade. Obama - open your eyes.

All of this discussion is

All of this discussion is nice and dandy but doesn't lead to change. Those who are working on local economies, local currencies, local food systems, local energy, etc., are moving in the right direction. When a community doesn't control its money, there are many other partners who may not have the best interest of the community at heart. All of this requires that we rethink our institutional structure and act according to our own best interests.

Has anyone here actually

Has anyone here actually spent some time examining the alternatives presented by Galbraith and others? The above article is useful only in that it provides a clue as to Timmy's real motivation - to save the banks, no matter what. Without understanding the broader economics of O's demonstrably wrong approach, any critique is of very limited value. One observation: the very same bankers who have repeatedly advised Japan over the years to open their eyes and let the weak fail so the system can get started again steadfastly ignore this same advice. Instead, Geithner gives a stress test, telling us ahead of time that no bank will fail! In other words, he has pronounced the stress test virtually worthless! Another: Elizabeth Warren is one of the few speaking truth to power. She alone has pointed out that the FDIC has already reorganized thousands of banks since the depression; the current administration calls this "nationalization" to warn us off such a "radical" solution. Another: Only 4 of the nation's largest banks hold 90% of the toxic assets. It would seem, then, that only 4 banks declared insolvent and reorganized under FDIC rules would fix the basic problems!

It's amazing how so many

It's amazing how so many supposedly intelligent adults exhibit such ignorant, childish lack of impulse control on this thread. I'm not happy with the Geithner/Summers appointments or their policies now operating in the financial sphere. Clearly, to me at least, these two are shills for the Wall Street thieves and banksters that are still hell-bent on bleeding the Treasury for their own benefit, the people of the nation be damned! This mess may very well wreck Obama's larger agenda, and if so, Geithner/Summers/Bernanke/Paulson, et al need to take the brunt of the blame. However, that all said, it should be noted that Obama has been President for barely 100 days! The President is a human being, not a god or an X-man, and with the mess he inherited, he hardly could reasonably be expected to clean it all up, bright-and-shiny-like-new in 3 months and 10 days, as MUCH as we all would have liked him to do. Virtually none of us really knows what the pressures and undercurrents are that are impinging on our President. Anyone recall what happened to JFK? And before everyone gets their knickers all in a knot over Obama's failure to instantly fix everything, it would behoove the commentariat and all good progressives to turn some attention -- and a LOT of heat -- onto our tin-foil-plated Democratic Congress, and especially the sold-out Dems in the Senate.

Unfortunately, the cause of

Unfortunately, the cause of the economic meltdown and all the accompanying corruption goes way beyond Obama and which crook he chooses to officially bleed the treasury. The problem is, and always has been, the institution of private property of land value. But that is so far off the paradigmatic scale that you reading this probably have no clue of to what I am referring. (Search "progress and poverty" of "henry george.") You see, it's not a matter of who gets bailed out and with how much. All the bailing will never keep the boat afloat because the underlying cause of all the dysfunction is in the primary error of treating Mother Earth and the social values that accrue to general (macro-economic) development, as private values. Once society acknowledges all economic rent (land values) as communal property, and captures that value as the primary public funding source (a tax shift - allowing then, the untaxing of productive labor and capital), then the economy, i.e., the process of the production and the distribution of real wealth (money is just a medium of exchange) will naturally find its healthy sustainable equilibrium. Henry George explained all this in Progress and Poverty. (By the way, both Kucinich and Nader know about this and have "georgist" advisors.)