March 10, 2009
Is Nationalization Even Legal?
Via Andrew, I see Time's razor sharp economics columnist, Justin Fox, has some questions about whether the government could seize a bank like Citi even if it wanted to: FDIC chairman Sheila Bair doesn't think a full government takeover of Citigroup and other multinational financial institutions is practical or even possible. Here are her reasons, as summarized by Pete Davis: 1. The legal authority to take over large banks does not currently extend to multinational financial conglomerates;2. The FDIC lacks the funding to conduct such a massive bailout;3.
Harold Pollack is a public health policy researcher at the University of Chicago's School of Social Service Administration, where he is faculty chair of the Center for Health Administration Studies. He is a regular contributor to The Treatment. Health care advocates are watching politicians for signs for what of elements of reform they will jettison in order to win the all-important, filbuster-proof majority of 60 votes in the Senate. And probably no single element looks more vulnerable right now that the proposal to create a public insurance plan, into which anybody could enroll.
Today's Journal reports that the government is already looking into plan B D for Citigroup, which could include the dread "bad bank," in which the government strips out Citi's toxic assets and tries to sell them at a profit later on: Barely a week after the third rescue of Citigroup Inc., U.S. officials are examining what fresh steps they might need to take to stabilize the bank if its problems mount, according to people familiar with the matter.
The Boston Globe's Peter Canellos has a smart piece explaining the unlikely resurgence of Mitt Romney: The former head of a private-equity firm, Romney has been one of the few Republicans to go beyond anti-pork rhetoric and talk in depth about economic issues. Last month, he smartly cast his lot with his friend, former eBay impresario Meg Whitman, who is running for governor of California as an entrepreneurial savior.
March 09, 2009
Here Comes the Fear
WASHINGTON--President Obama faces three overlapping questions: When will middle-of-the-road voters start blaming him for the sick economy? When will he act decisively to deal with the mess that is our banking system? And can he keep managing his political two-step of appealing simultaneously to centrists and progressives?He has to confront all three at once.
Click here to read Part 5: Obama Should Back the ICC.Click here for links to each part of the conversation.From: Alex de WaalTo: Richard Just, Andrew Natsios, Eric Reeves, Elizabeth Rubin, Alan WolfeLet me try to steer the debate back to the question of what the Obama administration should do about Sudan during its first term. A policy needs to be relatively simple (one or two priorities) with aims that are clear to all Sudanese parties.
Click here to read Part 6: No Option But to Negotiate.Click here for links to each part of the conversation.From: Andrew Natsios To: Alex de Waal, Richard Just, Eric Reeves, Elizabeth Rubin, Alan WolfeEditor's Note: We are pleased to welcome Andrew Natsios to the discussion. Natsios served as U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan in 2006 and 2007.I agree with nearly all of Alex de Waal's comments on the centrality of the North-South peace agreement in any U.S. policy toward Sudan. If war resumes, Sudan may collapse as a state with terrible humanitarian consequences.
Freeman The Contrarian?
Over the past few days, Chas Freeman's liberal defenders have been arguing that it would be valuable to have a contrarian voice in the administration. Jon Chait responded by noting that Freeman seemed less like a temperamental contrarian and more like someone with a worldview--dogmatic realism--that was simply unpopular. I mostly agree with Jon, but I would offer a caveat: Some elements of Freeman's worldview aren't contrarian or unpopular at all; in fact, they are deeply conventional.
Obama's Roosevelt-esque 100 Days
One of my favorite professors from college, Patrick Maney (now of Boston College), had a sharp Boston Globe op-ed a few weeks back. Maney, the author a terrific FDR biography, reminds us that even FDR didn't pull off FDR's first 100 days: The problem with the 100 days paradigm is that it obscures the vital role played by Congress - Republicans as well as Democrats - in crafting the First New Deal. It's too FDR-centric, what with Roosevelt and his brain trust bending a pliant Congress to their will within months of taking power. ... As often as not, Congress, not Roosevelt, forced the action.
My Washington Post op-ed tried to make the case against Chas Freeman that's much broader than his views on Israel. Reason's Matt Welch makes a similar case but, frankly, does it a lot better than I did, unearthing plenty of damning details I hadn't seen. You should really read Welch's entire piece.