iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Geithner, Summers Eclipsed As White House Changes Posture

First Posted: 03/23/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:15 PM ET

Rolling out his new, more aggressive approach to Wall Street, President Obama turned to some advisers who hadn't been seen much in the past year. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Obama were former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and Vice President Joe Biden. Council of Economic Advisers member Austan Goolsbee was brought out to brief reporters.

Biden has been pushing for a year for more focus on the middle class and Goolsbee and Volcker have been waging a lonely campaign to encourage the White House to be tougher on Wall Street.

One White House official didn't deny that that there has been "a shift" in the presentation of their economic policies and who is presenting them. Two other officials, meanwhile, pushed back to insist that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and senior adviser Larry Summers fully participated in crafting the new strategy.

Shortly after sharing the stage with Obama, however, it was Volcker who went to Capitol Hill to sell his idea to top Republicans.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) met him for a 45-minute, one-on-one meeting and ribbed the former Fed Chairman about the abrupt turnaround in his administration stature: This wouldn't have anything to do with a certain special election in Massachusetts, would it?

"I kidded him a little bit about that, to be candid. Was this more about votes or more about substance?" Corker said. "I kidded him about--you know, in the past they've used him as a prop."

Volcker, whose exile has at times been literal -- his biggest speech was delivered in Germany -- insisted that he was no prop, that the administration meant business. "From his standpoint, obviously it's about substance, and strongly encouraged me that from their standpoint it was, too," Corker said.

Volcker had company coming in from the cold. Goolsbee, long excluded from the White House's economic inner circle, took the lead in briefing reporters on the Volcker plan. Goolsbee is the chief economist for the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, a panel that was designed so that Volcker could chair it and advise the president. Little of that advice got much traction in the first year, however, as Geithner and Summers dominated.

The White House is now hoping to insert Volcker's proposal into the comprehensive package in the Senate.

Time will tell if the change is real, but to the extent that a president's words and stance have power in and of themselves, the message is clear. There is a new sheriff in town.

Corker said he and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the top ranking Republican on the banking committee, want Volcker to come testify and sent a letter to Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) asking him to invite the now prominent adviser. Shelby said that he also met with Volcker and personally asked him to testify before the committee, although he stressed that only Dodd can make invitations.

Geithner, meanwhile, was tossed to the populist mob by "financial industry sources" who told Reuters that "Obama's newest Wall Street crackdown was met with hesitation" by Geithner, who is "concerned that politics could be sacrificing good economic policy."

There's meaning behind the shifting public image, said one Democratic economist who informally advises the White House. "It's more than faces," he said in an e-mail. "Volcker is pushing and the White House seems to be moving towards much broader regulation of financial institutions, including limits on how big they can be, regulation of compensation arrangements and effective limits on their risks, which Summers and Geithner have sidelined but Volcker has pushed.

"On top of that is the president's neo-populist repositioning on the banks, which started before the election (but after the WH and most Dem pros in town had written off Coakley). Summers, of course, will 'adapt.' Harder for Geithner," he said.

Peter Morici, a professor at the Robert Smith School of Business the University of Maryland School, said that the lack of results is driving Geithner and Summers out.

"Geithner is just not doing a very good job of shaping and focusing bank reform on Capitol Hill. Worse, he is getting the president no points for championing it. So what you are seeing is the president is going to his bench and Volcker," he said. "Volcker is much more of a traditionalist. He wants to separate banks out and, while this doesn't go very far in that direction, it does go in that direction."

The two White House officials who said that Geithner and Summers were key players in the latest decision were adamant, however. It is the case that "Secretary Geithner and Director Summers were asked by the President to develop proposals, that they worked closely with Volcker, that they worked out a plan over the holidays, and that the plan was submitted to the President with a unanimous recommendation from the economic team," one said.

"Summers and Geithner deliberated over the concern that proprietary trading was not at the heart of the problem that fueled the crisis but concluded that reform needed to be about more than just fighting the last war, it needed to address sources of future risk as well," said another.

Sam Stein contributed reporting

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Rolling out his new, more aggressive approach to Wall Street, President Obama turned to some advisers who hadn't been seen much in the past year. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Obama were former F...
Rolling out his new, more aggressive approach to Wall Street, President Obama turned to some advisers who hadn't been seen much in the past year. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Obama were former F...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,515
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (35 total)
01:01 AM on 01/24/2010
I think that approach is a mistake.
All that reactivating the team that helped Obama win the election can accomplish is to remind many people how they were lifted up by the campaign slogans and rhetoric and how their enthusiasm turned to disappointment after Obama took office.
Hearing and seeing a re-run of Axelrod, Plouffe and Emanuel and other faces from the campaign will just rub salt in the wounds.
Instead, Obama should get a new message and have it delivered by new people.
The message should be that sidelining Summers and Geithner is only the start of an aggressive new approach. He should stress that having Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and Vice President Joe Biden step up to put muscle into financial regulations is not just window dressing. It would help if Elizabeth Warren was also featured on that team. On healthcare he should call back Howard Dean and ignore any hissy fits from his staff and actively use his millions of emails to reenergize that loyal section of his base to “out-activate” the tea-baggers. And neither last, and certainly not least, he should openly work to get Lieberman off every Senate committee.
Let the sparks fly and fires start where they fall.
03:12 PM on 01/23/2010
I think this may be the beginning of the end, read this piece and weep http://www.thecactusland.com/2010/01/ben-bernankes-head.html
03:31 PM on 01/22/2010
After his year-long wandering aimlessly through the woods, Obama appears to have found a clearing, and I see a glimmer of hope.

I expect to see his craven indecision, weak-kneed vacillation, and passive submission give way to a more forceful, principled and populist positioning.

I don't care how, and I don't care why - I just think it's high time, and I'll take it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pittsburghunionguy
03:20 PM on 01/22/2010
Obama should fire them both, and bring in Joe Stiglitz as Treasury Secretary. Then we would start getting somewhere.
vjones26
3 kinds of Repubs..Millionaires,Suckers,&......
03:16 PM on 01/22/2010
Why does the President keep these two in his innercircle?

I read where Summers lost about $1 billion for Harvard. Geithner was in charge of the NY Fed during the debacle.

Obviously not good endorsements for them. Fire them Mr. President!
03:32 PM on 01/22/2010
Absolutely!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carl Klapper
The Cassandra of American Politics
03:00 PM on 01/22/2010
Though I see no merit in regulation to implement policy -- why not just do it ourselves? -- I do favor Volcker's objective in separating banking out. Indeed, I would like to see a strict separation between banking operation and commercial interest. I regard any joining of the two as unsavory as bought judges.

My variant, which I proposed several weeks previous to the election, is to create a federal judicial bank and take over the adjudication of financial contracts, particularly the mortgages, which I would have converted into non-leveraged, non-foreclosure alternatives: AEMs. See my page for details: http://www.carlpeterklapper.org/solution.html

I wish Mr. Volcker well in his attempt to achieve a similar goal while noting that regulation has never worked in the past. The Populist experience of having their "own and control" approach to railroad replaced with an ineffective regulatory approach is telling. As a Populist, I take that lesson to heart and will not place hopes in any regulatory scheme. However, I am willing to discuss my "own and control" approach to financial operations with Mr. Volcker or his allies in the Obama administration.
03:22 PM on 01/22/2010
Sensible bank regulations enacted during the New Deal brought us over 50 years of uninterrupted prosperity and economic expansion. Within a few years of deregulation, the economy burst like a bubble.

You may want to rethink your hardcore views on regulation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carl Klapper
The Cassandra of American Politics
05:06 PM on 01/22/2010
The regulations were not all sensible. Bank regulations such as Regulation Q gave us stagflation, a clear interruption to prosperity. More importantly, failing to address leveraged investments such as the mortgage (yes, the plain vanilla variety does enough damage on its own , thank you) and the bugaboo of the 1929, holding companies in the newer "conglomerate" label, led to the speculative bubble that accompanied the economic expansion. As with previous bubbles leading to crashes, the growing of the bubble leads inevitably to the weakening of precisely the regulations which should have been strengthened, namely those separating the investment and banking functions.

This was a stronger institutional impetus in the case of the depositor banks. As private companies, their culture of caution and conservative investing was much maligned by risk-taking investment companies and left them vulnerable to takeovers from the 1970's on. In case you didn't notice, most of the local banks -- those with a more judicial approach to banking -- were taken over by recklessly mercenary national banks over the course of nearly 40 years. Accompanying these speculative moves was a progressive weakening of the Glass-Steagall regulations where certain kinds of banks taken over by aggressive owners felt "constrained" from making the "big money".

This was NOT a few years of deregulation, but a progressive eroding of regulatory constraints under the pressures of a speculative economy. AND it is inevitable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carl Klapper
The Cassandra of American Politics
05:06 PM on 01/22/2010
That is how the cycle of regulation works. Galbraith discusses this in his "Crash of 1929", but seems to think that some sort of memory infusion is likely to help. This I find much too optimistic, as the past 60 years have made clear. The pressures are too strong, too aligned with the avenues of power to be resisted.

So that is why my hardcore views against regulation remain. Every time I think or read about the subject, my views are corroborated.
02:29 PM on 01/22/2010
Obama finally got the message. Geithner and Summers do not merely have to be sidelined; they need to lose their jobs. They are Wall Street hacks. Summers did a terrible job at Harvard and lost 1.5 billion for them. Who needs these incompetent Wall Streeters in important jobs?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicholas Roy
02:11 PM on 01/22/2010
Starting to renew my trust in this Administration's ability to enact the finacial reform this country so despreatly needs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KayCo
02:04 PM on 01/22/2010
"Obama's newest Wall Street crackdown was met with hesitation" by Geithner, who is "concerned that politics could be sacrificing good economic policy."

Good economic policy?? For Who??? Hey Geithner where have you been lately??

This is the kind of statement that shows why this Wall Street insider need to be UNEMPLOYED!! And while you're at it, kick Summers to the curb as well!!! Let them experience what the economic policies they champion are doing to the regular people in this country!
01:41 PM on 01/22/2010
Including Summers in any discussion going forward will only lead to a watering down of any future reforms! He advacated the repeal of Glass Steagall during slick willy's tenure. He must save face by holding on or run the risk of discrediting himself, (not that he hasn't already done so in many people's eyes). There is an inherent conflict of interest by keeping him on.

Fire Geitner as well. There should never be a place in government policy making for former industry insiders...irrespective of what industry is in question.

Are you listening White House? If not, you better!
01:32 PM on 01/22/2010
Vice President Joe Biden? You mean the former senator from the usury state of CreditCardaware? The guy who fronted the recent bankruptcy bill? That Joe Biden? http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-26.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
plaidsportcoat
01:31 PM on 01/22/2010
"Summers and Geithner deliberated over the concern that proprietary trading was not at the heart of the problem that fueled the crisis but concluded that reform needed to be about more than just fighting the last war, it needed to address sources of future risk as well,"

I think the average Joe in the USA already understood years ago that policies need to address sources of future risk.
WTF???
01:16 PM on 01/22/2010
I wonder if Timmy G will be released before Hillary bails.

BOth are gone this year.
photo
imusintheevening
With,without,who'll deny it's whatthe fights about
01:21 PM on 01/22/2010
BS - No way Hillary is leaving. You are talking out of your Rush orafice.
12:46 PM on 01/22/2010
I really like the story picture. I have a composite picture of Geithner that I produced a while ago where he looks like Pan playing the pipes, and I've also been working on one with Summers morphing into the Cheshire Cat. Obama is the Emperor with no clothes, but that is hard to depict, so I will have to think of something else for him. Then I will put their composites into a picture similar to the story picture and have my 7 year old grandson write a story about it..
12:41 PM on 01/22/2010
The elections are not really about all the important things--jobs, etc.--, these elections are about attitudes--attitudes of the American people that we wil not tolerate Chicago, or elsewhere, mob rule attitudes. They are about an American attitude that says we may be Democrat or Republican, Idependent or Tea Baggers or something else, but we are Americans and we are not Socialists. We are generous, we are caring we are helpful and we are American, but we are not Socialists and we will not accept Socialism as a way of life. Not for Obama or any of the trainload of Socialists who came to Washington with a grand plan of fundamentally changing America. We are Americans and we vote for America. Its the ATTITUDE, stupid.
BlackBottom
Staunch supporter of the Capite Censi & Middle Cls
01:41 PM on 01/22/2010
You are a partisan reactionary. Clinging to the past is un-American. America is famous for its openness and audacity for change. An extraordinary example is its giving its keys to a very capable Blackman, which has solidified its seat at the apex of hope and aspiration and the possible. Those who truly understand history and grasps what is happening today are marveling at the President's vision and big ideas. They've never seen this type of audacity since FDR and if Obama can pull it off, he may find a place on Mount Rushmore. They are looking at the long haul; the far seeing eye of history. Such an eye is out of focus when looking at events de jour.