Does Bill Clinton still not grasp that the current economic crisis is in large measure his legacy? Obviously that's the case, or he wouldn't have had the temerity to write a 14-point memo for Newsweek on how to fix the economy that never once refers to the home mortgage collapse and other manifestations of Wall Street greed that he enabled as president.
Endorsing the Republican agenda of financial industry deregulation, reversing New Deal safeguards, President Clinton pursued policies that in the long run created more damage to the American economy than any other president since Herbert Hoover, whose presidential tenure is linked to the Great Depression. Now, in his Newsweek piece, Clinton has the effrontery to once again revive his 1992 campaign mantra, "It's the economy, stupid," as the article's title without any sense of irony, let alone accountability. But that has always been the man's special gift -- to rise above, and indeed benefit from, the messes he created.
His list of safe nostrums -- painting tar-surface roofs white and seeking more efficient solar and battery production -- to be featured at his lavishly funded Clinton Global Initiative conference in Chicago next week is vintage Clinton hype. All of those solutions are of the win/win sort that he loved to ballyhoo as president; who in his or her right mind would be against green job creation? But that hardly speaks to a crisis in which, as was reported Tuesday, the housing meltdown continues unabated as the toxic mortgages sold and packaged by the leading banks and investment houses clog the real estate market, destroying consumer confidence and hobbling job creation.
Conceding that the bailed-out banks are sitting on $2 trillion that they won't lend, Clinton offers not a word about mortgage relief for swindled homeowners. With an all-time high of 44 million Americans living below the poverty line, Clinton once again brags of his success in ending the federal welfare program.
There is only a one-sentence reference in the Clinton article to the era of financial greed: "The real thing that has killed us in the last 10 years is that too much of our dealmaking creativity has been devoted to expanding the financial sector in ways that don't create new businesses and more jobs and to persuading people to take on excessive debt loads to make up for the fact that their incomes are stagnant." Now that's a clear description of the consequence of President Clinton's policy of radical deregulation of the financial industry, but he writes as if that outcome has nothing to do with him.
Clinton signed off on the reversal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the legislative jewel of the Franklin Roosevelt administration designed to prevent financial institutions from getting too big to fail. In signing the Financial Services Modernization Act, which broke down the barrier between high-rolling Wall Street investment firms and consumer banks carrying the deposits of ordinary folk, Clinton gushed in 1999, "Over the [past] seven years we have tried to modernize the economy... And today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down those antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority."
The first beneficiary of that legislation was Citigroup, a corporation that resulted from a merger that would have been banned by Glass-Steagall. Upon signing the law, Clinton handed one of the pens he used to a beaming Sandy Weill, Citigroup CEO and a close friend and financial supporter of the president. Clinton's treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, then went off to be a $15-million-a-year exec at Citigroup and was in a key position there when the bank made those toxic derivative packages that would have forced it into bankruptcy had U.S. taxpayers not bailed the bank out.
So much for the "modernizing" that Clinton had bragged about.
A year later a variation of that same word appeared in the title of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Clinton signed and which exempted from government regulation all of the collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps that would later prove so toxic. That legislation led to the explosion of the market in unregulated mortgage-based securities, the key source of the financial-sector "dealmaking" that Clinton now bemoans.
In his memoir Clinton pays tribute to Rubin as "the best and most important treasury secretary since Alexander Hamilton." He wrote that line in 2004, when Rubin, who had come to Clinton from a top job at Goldman Sachs and later left for Citigroup, was already clearly defined as someone who profited mightily from the very bills that he had pushed through while working for Clinton.
As with so much in the Clinton record, the former president remains in deep denial over having any culpability for his misdeeds. In his thousand-page memoir there is no reference to the above-mentioned radical deregulation of the economy that he presided over. As evidenced by his Newsweek article, the man has long been convinced that there is no problem or contradiction of his that cannot be simply plastered over with blather. Sadly, he may be right.
Trevor Neilson: The Clinton Global Initiative: Making Progress Where Others Have Failed
Bill Clinton's Newsweek Cover Story Shows the Clinton-Obama Rivalry Is Not Dead
It's Still the Economy, Stupid - Newsweek
Bill Clinton: Stop Govt 'Food Fight' to Improve Future
It Ain't Over Until the President Sings: Bill Clinton's Life Gets the Opera ...
When you weigh his administration objectively---or contrast it with either of the Roosevelts, or Kennedy, or Truman, or Johnson---he is clearly inferior.
But not because he wasn't smart or competent; he was. Clinton's failing was one related to ideology. He was much closer to Eisenhower at a time when the country was needing FDR.
The last three "Democratic" presidents---Carter, Clinton and now Obama---have all been major disappointments, and much more like moderate Republicans than Democrats.
And, as a result, Republican ideas gained currency and legitimacy, while the legacy of the once proud Democratic Party became only a distant memory.
However, to this day, I have many progressive friends who think of Clinton as a "great president" and who still gush over him.
When I point out the many specific policies of his administration that were "Republican lite", they bristle, as if I'm attacking a personal friend.
Some people just can't get over the myth and image of "The Clintons" as some sort of liberal saviors. Right. If only...
When I ask for specifics about why Clinton was good, I usually get responses like "Oh, so you're saying you like Bush?!?!?" or "Well, Bush was the worst ever." When I press, and ask them to tell me what made CLINTON a "good president", what I usually get is something like, "You don't agree with the Republicans who tried to impeach him? Do you?"
For a lot of people, their "thinking" about The Clintons goes something like this: "Anyone who the conservatives hate so much just HAS to be good!"
No, actually they don't. Today's conservatives are so unhinged, so over the top, that to use their bizarre, off-the-charts hatred of Clinton as somehow "proving" that Clinton had to be "good", is very twisted logic.
Here's another thing Clinton didn't do anything about - oil dependence. Exxon-Mobil merged (even though they part of the Standard Oil monopoly that was broken up by Theodore Roosevelt). But that's not so bad, Clinton didn't raise the MPG standard for autos in the US even 1 mpg. The SUV went from a tool that a few people had to everybody's everyday vehicle in the 1990s.
irresponsible behavior.
=As American troops continue to fight and die in wars started by Bill Clinton's successor, we are still haunted by that stained dress, 13 years later.
Bad enough we got "O"....
there were PLEANTY of REAL DEMOCRATS out there last time... Mike Gravel for a start... but no. We took the guy who worked a year at a CIA front company, then got himself a perfect "democrat" resume... with all the right bells and whistles.
They slapped a stylized "o" on it, and Americans rushed out and bought it.
Then Obama walked in with the very same people Hillary would have, no new names or faces.... same old, same old..... so much for change.
Their problem is they believe in "Free Trade" which is just a fancier name for "trickle down" economics. Like many moderates (liberal Republicans), they've been seduced by the "magic" of the market. It was Clinton who gave legitimacy (against strong union opposition) to Free Market economics in the 1990's. Unfortunately, "free market" purists, i.e. corporatists, have come out of the woodworks in the past 20 years and taken the free market model far beyond anything Clinton or Obama imagined. Some Republicans openly espouse the theory the only function of government should be national defense.
It's like before the Russian revolution or the 1920's rise of facism when moderates let some of the odious ideas of the extremists in only to become overwhelmed when those factions gained enough legitimacy to stand before the people themselves.
{{{F&F}}}
I agree there are lots of things that happened during the 90's that turned out bad. But, with the exception of the mortgage backed securities, most of them were things that should have turned out positive. So if we are saying that Bill Clinton caused all the bad stuff, then we are looking at the symptoms of the problem and calling the symptoms, the problem. And the problem is the government has set about encouraging monoply sectors and denied that a free enterprise democratic market place only thrives when much competition is encouraged.
Once again: Clinton opposed repeal of Glass-Steagall. He signed the bill because it had a veto-proof majority. NAFTA had proitections for workers and the environent. These were gutted by the Republicans.
When the dust has settled, Clinton is the only guy around who has a resume. The Republicans have brought America nothing but pain. Progressives have accomplished nothing in recent years, except to help put another neocon in the White House.
ECS
Robert, why hasn't anyone questioned Clinton on this and get his take on where do we go from here, why did he really sign these horrible acts into law, and whether he would now believe that bringing back Glass-Seagal is a viable option, even though so many financial experts howl that "There's no way we can put the genie back in the bottle!!" Which is pure baloney, if we just had the leadership to get it done. We don't. Really sad.