Senator Clinton Insults TPMCafe
Yesterday on one of the Sunday morning talk shows Clinton said: "When the federal government, through the Fed and Treasury, gave $30 billion in a bailout to Bear Stearns, I didn't hear anybody jump in and say, 'That's not going according to the market, that's rewarding irresponsible behavior.'"
I feel personally insulted and so should everyone connected with TPMCafe. As you all know, that is exactly what I have been screaming at the top of my lungs. In fact, I've said this so many times, that many of you are sick of hearing it.
And I didn't just say it at TPMCafe. I also said it at The American Prospect, Truthout, the Guardian, and Common Dreams. In fact, I've also said this in such prominent news outlets as the Lehrer News Hour and The New York Times.
Apparently Senator Clinton didn't hear me. She also didn't hear my solution, which is certainly not a silly cut in the gas tax which will primarily benefit the oil industry.
I would instead like to see a solution that actually hits the people with money and actually helps the people without money. So, if we give the Wall Street investment banks taxpayer dollars, the deal is that they must have full transparency with the Fed, restrictions on leverage, reserve requirements, and caps on executive compensation.
How does $2 million a year sound? That's total compensation, including wages, bonuses, stock options, life insurance policies, private use of corporate jets, private use of beach homes, private use of luxury condos etc. (We'll let the big boys average out compensation over their tenure.) If the executives don't like the deal, they don't have to take it. Then they will just have to explain to their shareholders why they cost them all their equity by letting their bank fail because they wouldn't take the deal from the Fed.
Of yeah, and how about a modest financial transactions tax also? That will slow down the speculation and raise some big bucks (@ $150 billion a year or 5 percent of the budget) for things we need like health care, child care, and preventing global warming.
So, that the deal. Can you hear me (an economist) saying these things Senator Clinton?
Comments (26)
And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."
I probably should have said, "I could not have imagined," . . . .
May 5, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the plan. Works for me.
How about a little stick to keep insider trading in check? Shorting Bear Stearns if you had inside info--uncool. Didn't Obama gloss this briefly in his Cooper Union speech, along with limits on executive compensation?
May 5, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-calls-for-bad-weather-holiday.html
Monday, May 05, 2008
Clinton Calls for "Bad Weather Holiday"
"When asked this morning by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos if she could name a single economist who backs her call for a gas tax holiday this summer, HRC said "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists.”
The gas tax holiday is...so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling."
-Robert Reich, May 4, 2008
I know we've got those "intellectual", high-falutin', elitist meteorologists, those "forecasters" with their complicated charts and their mumbo-jumbo, their high fronts and their low fronts, their Doppler radars. But I've come to say that we're going to put an end to all of that.
When my daddy and I went out in the morning in (Scranton, Indianapolis, Durham, Hagåtña, Charlotte Amalie, San Juan), and he said "It's going to be a sunny day today", well, that was good enough for me.
And that's why, if you vote for me on (May 6, May 13, June 3), I will put into effect a "Bad Weather Holiday" running from the years 2009-2012--and potentially extendable.
That's right. We shouldn't have to eat our (hot dogs, barbecue, tamales, Chicken Estufao, Stewed oxtail) under rainy skies. We've had enough of going off to work in the (streets, sands, seas) of this most beautiful (state, territory) only to face a cold, cloudy day. We know what it's like to rest our weary bones after a hard day of labor in the nearest (local watering hole, locale taberna, berlina) only to step out into a stiff, tiring wind.
The Weather issue is very real to me, as I've been meeting people across this nation who (walk, drive, sail, ride ox before stewing tail) to work, and would save precious sums if they did not have to spend their hard earned money on "umbrellas" and "rain coats" and other high priced, high class items of the upper crust.
But I say: Let the 'Umbrella Lobby' take the brunt--not our hard working citizens. Oh, sure. I know elite opinion and so called "academic experts" say that my plan would cause 12 straight years of hail, swarms of ravenous locusts, and a vortex of hurricanes ranging from the Mideast to the West Coast.
But I don't put stock in experts. And neither should you. And that's why you should vote for me on (May 6, May 13, June 3).
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-calls-for-bad-weather-holiday.html
May 5, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary think you dress funny and smell like corn chips. I wouldn't take it to heart though, whe's been pretty busy lately.
May 5, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary think you dress funny and smell like corn chips. I wouldn't take it to heart though, whe's been pretty busy lately.
May 5, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
ALL of the liberal blogosphere was up in arms over the Bear Stearns bailout.
But Hillary has decided we're unimportant. We don't love our guns and pandering enough to count for her.
May 5, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dean,
Regarding "Securities Transaction Excise Taxes" - would it not be simpler to just have a sales tax on securities transactions?
To my feeble mind, it seems likely that it would have the added benefit of smoothing out some of the volatility in the market, by imposing additional costs on short-term profit-taking.
May 5, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course when she said no one was up in arms over Bear Stearns she meant "nobody on the right." Which means, yes, she's ceded the terms of debate to their side.
But, Dean... has Obama adopted any of your ideas? I don't see anybody running for office on our side who would propose a modest transaction tax.
We need to get Dean's ideas into the party platform because right now, they're not on any candidate's platform. The bets you can say is that since Obama is still on speaking terms with economists that Dean might have a shot with him.
May 5, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dean, emblamatic of the whole WHINEY Obama campaign. Grow a pair for gods sakes.
May 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville1975 , emblamatic of the whole WHINEY Clinton campaign. Strong enough to stand up for oil and banks but too weak to confront enemies face-to-face. Talk about pussies and panderers.
I'll give them this much, they have no inhibitions about being "scared" and making sure everybody else is, too.
You are the politics of the past: void of common sense and truth. Always willing to break the rules to benefit yourselves and your cronies instead of doing the heavy lifting of responsible governance.
Bitter, sour grapes you will eat.
Pathetic.
May 5, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville's actually a dittohead from Operation Chaos, not a Clinton supporter.
Just go back and look...
May 5, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am? News to me. Mind telling everyone that I know that kicks the crap out of me for being a liberal that I am actually a conservative?
May 5, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh, Ole Barry is sure showing us. He's spent a total of what 2 weeks in the Senate since he got there? WORKING hard for the people of Illinois. What a joke.
May 5, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right. Senator Clinton didn't hear you.
May 5, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a typical Clinton statement. When she says, "I didn't hear anybody..." she neglects to mention that she wasn't listening. (She probably hasn't "heard" anybody comment that the gas tax holiday is a stupid idea, either.)
Plus, the word "anybody" is open to interpretation. What she means is "anybody who isn't one of those elitist, rational, economist-types."
Sorry, Dean. You (and I, and the rest of the TPM community) just don't count. Not in Mrs. Clinton's world.
-- ARG
May 5, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When the federal government, through the Fed and Treasury, gave $30 billion in a bailout to Bear Stearns, I didn't hear anybody jump in and say, 'That's not going according to the market, that's rewarding irresponsible behavior.'"
Isn't she talking about not hearing objections from anyone the federal government (Fed and Treasury); those involved in the bailout?
May 5, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe TPMCafe should quit whining, pull itself together, and start acting like a big boy. If that's your idea of insulted, you're simply not ready for prime time.
May 5, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say that the vast majority of the whining in this campaign came from the Clintons. Senator Clinton complained that the other candidates were ganging up on her in debates because she is a women. Both Clintons complained that the media was treating her unfairly. (Senator Clinton even complained about being asked the first question in debates.) And lately Senator Clinton has taken to complaining about being outspent by Obama.
You can say that the Clintons have been very effective whiners, but you can't say that they haven't been whiners.
May 5, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief. Like Obama hasn't been whining? Wright! Rezcko! You have no right to ask me hard questions!! Where's my pillow?
May 5, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about a war tax, Mr. Baker? We could call it a windfall profits tax and use it for things like a rebate to the bilked taxpayers, and I dunno, Veterans affairs?
Maybe the debt.
May 5, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
“…complained that the media was treating her unfairly.”
Your headline: Senator Clinton Insults TPMCafé
Your last headline was: Clinton Supports Big Summer Tax Break for the Oil Industry
As far as your proposal: a $2 million a year cap? That’s socialism! No, I think your ideas have great merit (they sound good to me). But why introduce them as some kind of an answer to Clinton? Is she arguing against any of these proposals? Is the gas tax cut her solution to the whole sub-prime housing bubble recession economic funk? I thought it was just a little temporary relief for the summer combined with a long-term windfall profits tax, investigation of the oil cos. and energy program to address high fuel prices. I realize it is the “dumbest idea ever thunk” by an empty-headed politician but is it so dumb that we have to stretch to find imagined slights that have little relation to the subject?
How about comparing Bush’s new program to ease the costs of high oil prices and right the economy- make tax cuts permanent (I wonder if he’s including the $30-40 billion in subsidies to Big Oil?), drill ANWR, build refineries and nuke plants as quick as possible. And isn’t Obama tied to some of these same Wall Steet guys that have created this problem?
http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html
I think you have some good ideas but do you have to make them part of a partisan campaign?
May 5, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's not socialism, but I'm glad you suggested that it is. It's the kind of idea people suggest when they can't think of anything else, but don't want to get serious about a real socialist idea.
Socialism would be nationalizing the oil companies, not regulating them in ways like this.
I'm a socialist, by the way, and I love the idea of oil profits being public revenue instead of chump change for private billionaires. I think Wal-Mart and the health insurance companies (on the way to single payer) should be next. Those three are making record profits these days, but no one seems to know how else to deal with them.
(The picture is not me; it's Francis Bellamy, author of the US' Pledge of Allegiance, a Baptist minister, and a socialist.)
May 6, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a joke of course (that’s what the poor CEOs would say). And I do think it would be wise to nationalize oil. Technically it may be socialism, but like with national health care, it’s an idea that integrates easily into our capitalist democratic republic (as in other democracies). Of course, health care access is pretty much a human right and oil is a necessary utility for survival in this world (and it is destroying this world), so those are industries where government control could be justified.
That said, it’ll never happen (in my lifetime anyway) just like a true single payer UHC won’t happen in this era. The conservatives took back (or never relinquished) oversight of the marketplace and reversed the regulatory trends of a few decades ago with a few exceptions. Wall Street seems like a Frankenstein monster today. Think about it: there was endless talk of reform post-Enron and execs were screaming about all of the regulation but at the same time they were creating this huge scam sub-prime loan market and rigging new financial schemes and still playing the energy broker and price-gouging games. Remind you of anything?
I don’t know much about the economy but I remember after the S & L debacle, which cost me a little and the small business guy I subbed from a lot, when Bush 1 was saying “never again” as he bailed the money guys out with over a $half trillion of our money. Oh well, I’m ranting now. Back to your original idea, I have little doubt that the public would be behind nationalization of both oil and health care if it was presented well, but it would never even get in the door on Capitol Hill. Who do our representatives represent?
May 6, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo Dean!
You're not the only one who has been hollering. I've said this to other bank officers and members of the financial community. And so have they - across party lines. There is a lot of agreement here! It's just not in the MSM. They're busy Wright now.
"So, if we give the Wall Street investment banks taxpayer dollars, the deal is that they must have full transparency with the Fed, restrictions on leverage, reserve requirements, and caps on executive compensation."
Absolutely! And that's just a start.
Also glad to see you write they should average it out over years. Whatever the dollar figure ends up being, it must be tied to long-term performance - not just the company - overall market stability. Like deferred salary in the NFL, but only if your team has a winning record for years and years.
The best idea in the post is the financial transactions tax. Now that they have shown they can potentially cripple the whole financial system, they ought to pay this into a fund, perhaps like the FDIC, so that the next Bear Stearns doesn't get taxpayer money, they get their peers' money - a stronger incentive to maintain standards.
One more idea - if you know that a few big icebergs can sink the whole financial ship, why let them get that big in the first place? The government broke up AT&T because it was bad for consumers and it cost a lot to call long distance. And these bergs? They almost caused another 1929.
Give the politicians some time to catch up - they're busy beating the gas out of each other. But don't worry - I'm sure they're saving up (check out some of McCain's statements on the matter) there will be no ammunition shortage for the democrats this fall.
May 6, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dean,
I have a different idea; I'm curious what you think about it.
Use eminent domain to nationalize wayward corporations - not just big oil companies, but it would work very well to enable single-payer if the federal government would simply nationalize the health insurance industry.
Corporate buyouts happen all the time. What I'm suggesting is that the public, as represented by the federal government, be the buyer, so that the public owns the profits.
The problem with manipulating taxes is that the owners of the companies that would have to pay them can just price shifting. Put another way, the problem is that private ownership gets to decide how they make profits by changing prices, whether costs are taxes or otherwise. And if that's the problem, a solution is to convert companies to public ownership - all profits are then public revenue.
I read a story about how FDR intended for a federal highway system (the interstate system that Ike later built) to be self-funding via eminent domain purchasing and resale of frontage property. Before the highways existed, the fair market value of the property was lower than it would be afterward, so a substantial profit could be expected by reselling to businesses (gas stations, restaurants, etc.).
I mention it because it seems this sort of use of eminent domain in the public interest isn't thought of anymore. So, I'd like to hear an economist ponder the possibility of using now, for various of the economic problems we now face.
Of course, this idea is socialism; I'm a socialist, so I don't consider "it's socialism" valid criticism. In a week when two of the three US presidential candidates suggest suspending a tax, I really don't think this is a bad proposal, and I seriously want to hear a reasoned response to the proposal. I hope you'll humor me, at the least, even if you don't take the idea seriously.
May 6, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you look at the MSM frame of the issue, it's set up as bailout vs. no bailout, so a scheme that keeps people in homes under whatever scheme is perceived as a bailout. Proposing the bail out some people and not others is too complicated for the frame and just disappears. What's most interesting, though, is that framing the issue this way allows the Fed to bail out Bear Stearns, as that bailout is less "visible," while preventing the bailout of an elderly homeowner in Cleveland who was duped into a subprime option ARM.
The final effect of this, though, is that the rich get bailed out and the elderly homeowner gets evicted.
May 6, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink