|
|||
|
Bill Clinton’s Legacy of DenialPosted on Jun 21, 2011
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 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. Advertisement 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.
Previous item: Japan's Meltdowns Demand New No-Nukes Thinking Next item: Commencement Day for a Lost Generation New and Improved CommentsWe are launching a major overhaul of our comments section. In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread. Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts. Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with. Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page. |
By madisolation, June 22, 2011 at 5:15 am Link to this comment
jbud66, I’m with you:
“I would love to see Reagan’s corpse, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama, ALL crammed into the same 6’ x 9’ cell in The Hague wearing the same striped suits.”
Imagine what that bunch of hypocritical sociopaths (as surfnow described Clinton) would say to one another if they were all crammed together in that small cell! I think they’d all be trying to come up with plausible lies for their trial.
Report thisI can just see Obama testifying:
“I…ah..I believe..ah..I…indefinite detention and drones were for the good of..ah…”
By PRGP, June 22, 2011 at 4:35 am Link to this comment
Bill Clinton should stfu.
Report thisBy FRTothus, June 22, 2011 at 4:00 am Link to this comment
This talk of Clinton leaving a surplus is very
Report thismisleading, a very narrow assessment of what actually
was done. Putting aside clever accounting tricks and
rule changes that hid and still hide the debt, the
“surplus” was what was left over after paying the
INTEREST payment on the then current National Debt
(forget about principle), and a closer look will show
that this was done on the backs of working people and
the unemployed all across North America, and we are
paying for it still. Fascism is the crime, Clinton was
only one in a long line of its willing dupes.
By Awi, June 22, 2011 at 3:53 am Link to this comment
Clinton is a shameless opportunist whose revisionist history is filtered through an ego as big as the moon. The use of the word “denial” is a kind characterization of the truth.
Report thisBy thecrow, June 22, 2011 at 3:41 am Link to this comment
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/valor/
Report thisBy surfnow, June 22, 2011 at 3:33 am Link to this comment
I knew Clinton was a liar and a sneak during his first campaign in 1991, when he dismissed his opposition to the Vietnam War as youthful idealism. His record speaks for itself- he did more to lose American jobs and more to enrich corporations than any Republican. He also expanded the War on Drugs more than Richard Nixon and HW Bush. During his tenure more non- violent pot smokers were imprisoned than any other administration- this while he and his entire staff were notorious drugs users. What a lying, thieving hypocrite- a real sociopath.
Report thisBy SoTexGuy, June 22, 2011 at 3:25 am Link to this comment
Question.. ‘who .... would be against green job creation’?
Answer.. the Republicans and their Congressional delegation. Also, Obama and Democrats in Congress who, kowtowing to the monkey-shines of the Republicans, let ‘green’ issues and initiatives languish and die.. Never voted on, never signed or just never funded.
That’s who!
All this despite the clear will of Americans that we go forward with new energy sources and ideas and act now to reverse the catastrophic loss of jobs and industry, achieve energy security and tackle environmental degradation.
Adios!
Report thisBy Bones, June 22, 2011 at 2:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I recollect calling him Mr WTO throughout the 90s. NATFA was but one of endless betrayals of working Americans. I don’t know if the Presidents of my youth were corporate puppets also or was I just young and naive. Reagan through the currently occupier give us real reason to abolish the Presidency and come up with a new form of government. The President is always going against what the vast majority want, so this definitely isn’t a democracy.
Elections are ridiculous and childish. Petty personality contests with no discussion of real issues. And the press is too lazy or corrupt to point out the candidates’ records of failures.
America is a freak show.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, June 22, 2011 at 2:06 am Link to this comment
Clinton signed NAFTA when he should have tore it up.
Report thisBy ardee, June 22, 2011 at 1:54 am Link to this comment
So then ,Mr.Scheer, You mean to note that Clinton was pretty much like all our recent Presidents then?
I guess it must be the fact that I am a Libra that forces me to counter this overwhelming prosecution of this man. Not that I mean to defend him for much of his professional and personal life, and the accusations the author flings are , by and large, pretty accurate. Also rather normal for our ‘corporation tied’ political system as well.
When Clinton left office we had a surplus, did we not? We had a balanced budget as well, right? To say that Clinton abolished Glass -Steagall is true enough, it was his signature on the bottom of the Omnibus Bill that concluded the business of that Congress and his Presidency. But this ignores the fact that the ending of that legislation was buried within an Omnibus Bill, arriving on the President’s desk at the very last minute, and it weighed over forty pounds as well! Is it possible that our lame duck President didn’t know it was in there?
In the end I must perforce condemn the Clinton Presidency as I do all of them since the one term of a certain peanut farmer. But to rank Clinton as worse than Reagan, the man most responsible for our current dilemmas, or Bush 43, a man as unequal to the task as is Obama, just seems to offend my sense of correctness….we are all free, after all, to judge for ourselves.
Report thisBy Externality, June 22, 2011 at 1:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I would add NAFTA—which Clinton signed, and along with Robert Reich, helped push through Congress—to his list of disasters. It helped destroy the economies of both Mexico and the industrial areas of the American Midwest, undermined environmental standards throughout North America, devalued the Mexican peso (requiring a bailout of both Mexico and Wall Street in December 1994), and led to mass immigration to the US by newly unemployed Mexican citizens.
I would also remind people of his role in creating the national security state. The Clinton administration helped push through Congress a bill known as Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). CALEA required phone companies to install hardware and software, manufactured by a small group of companies, to let the government engage in automated, real time wiretapping and Internet surveillance without further involvement by the phone company. All Bush had to do was to have his people turn the equipment fully on, an act that he started before 9/11. No messy warrants required. There are numerous other examples. Fortunately, some other Clinton-era initiatives —such as an end to online anonymity or pseudo-anonymity—were struck down as unconstitutional or dropped until Bush came into office (e.g., an early version of the Patriot Act).
Report thisBy jbud66, June 22, 2011 at 12:27 am Link to this comment
I would love to see Reagan’s corpse, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama, ALL crammed into the same 6’ x 9’ cell in The Hague wearing the same striped suits.
Report thisBy vote, June 21, 2011 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment
He lied to women, minorities, pot smokers, all young people, all progressives, etc. He told them whatever they wanted to hear and then slammed the door of the oval office behind him once he was elected. Another preacher of change and of giving the power back to the people who didn’t pan out, to put it lightly. When are we going to learn that millionaires aren’t any good with other peoples’ money? Stop voting for rich people, they are never going to represent us, ever. What motivation do they have to help those who need it? Morals? You won’t find anybody with real morals at the country club.
Report thisPage 2 of 2 pages < 1 2