Obama Cabinet Could Intensify Dems Addiction in Housing Market
(update at the bottom of this post)
There seems to be a void in the bailout discussion. Not that the subject has not been broached however it is not as central as it should be with election day a month away and early voting already occuring. That subject is the question of a potential Obama cabinet. Many are complaining that the bailout plan put forward by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson puts to much power in one person’s hands. While Paulson presented the plan and perhaps not of his own accord he will not likely be the one administering to the bailing out. Unless he can spend a trillion dollars before someone’s next administration gets a cabinet appointment confirmed by the Senate who just voted for the bailout bill, someone other than Hank Paulson will be working the bailout plan.
Of course the cabinet will submit their resignations and a new one will be assembled at some point by John McCain or Barack Obama’s administration. For all Obama’s talk about hope and change with little substance we will try to add some here. If the information in a WSJ report is valid, Mr Obama is more like Washington than he likes to let on.
Rumors abound for New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner to be Obama’s Treasury Secretary. The more telling possibilities are current Obama economic advisor from JP Morgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, considering the current financial mess that seems counter intuitive. Then there is Gov Corzine of NJ but he is said to have a demeanor that may not play well in Washington and he was the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Sound like the bailout blues could reward more people from the financial community with high level government jobs. More financial sector executives with marriage ties to the DNC or the Clintons or Mayor Bloomberg are also on the short list forecast.
Although the report ends with the suggestion that Obama may move away from the financial sector for potential cabinet secretaries due to the subprime mess that did not stop Dems before. As stated here earlier Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act into law. Then Clinton signed bank deregulation into law followed by Senator Dodd’s involvement with the Banking Committee and current position as its Chairman which only aided and abetted those interested in increasing home ownership for those who could not afford it and pressuring lenders to fulfill their requests. Add to that all those who made fat paychecks from fees and commissions from selling subprime mortgages and you have the fix we’re in now.
Republicans share in the responsibility for their part in Congress or choice not to fight the trend. But it was after all two Democratic Presidents not using the veto pen on two pieces of legislation that got the ball rolling. Obama claims he ‘called’ the Treasury Secretary to sound the alarm on Fannie and Freddie but McCain co-sponsored a bill in 2005, S190 in the Senate that never got out of committee according to Thomas, Library of Congress records. Maybe Hagel who is listed as the sponsor of the bill as well as co-sponsors Dole and McCain could have done more to push the oversight bill but there may have been so little support for it among the other members of Congress that it would not fly. That is why many in Congress get to share the blame for the bailout problem. And they just passed one of the bailout plans this week. As of this writing members of the House may believe the Senate gave them enough political cover to pass HR 1424 in the House. This would partly explain their 12% approval rating. And it further points out that the problem is BIPARTISAN. Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible. But not all Democrats and Republicans are guilty. Separating the wheat from the chaff may take some time.
But the real question, who will be the Treasury Secretary administering the bailout plan? The WSJ report at the top of this post indicates whether from Wall Street or not Obama’s choice will not be hope or change. The fact that an Obama administration would not be hope or change in the real sense is something lost on Obama supporters including the MSM. Perhaps all those loyal Obama fans are anticipating benefits coming their way like some Wall Street types and politicians are expecting if Obama is elected. Can we afford more personalities like William Ayers, Rev Wright or Tony Rezko in an Obama administration? Other than a 2012 Presidential bid are their White House jobs or cabinet posts in the Clintons’ future for supporting Obama after a bitter fight? How much hope of change do you really expect from Barack Obama and Joe Biden? At least McCain’s running mate can make an honest suggeston of change coming to Washington since she is an outsider. But just when you thought the Dems would welcome change and in fhe form of a woman as a VP, you find out that only counts if that person is a Democrat. So the left’s claim for change and support of women is a joke. They want change as long as it is liberal change. Feminists are liberals by and large but when a conservative woman has a shot at the White House they turn on her.
There is more being told in this election season than who will win the White House. Standing on principle knows no party. If you embrace change the party should not matter as long as change comes If you embrace the role of women in politics the party should not matter. Since the change and the role of women is restricted in the DNC to Democrats and/or liberals the mantra of hope and change should be stated liberal hope and liberal change need only apply.
Barack Obama will look like any other politician if he gets to the White House. He will do things that you don’t want at his discretion. He will do things you don’t want because of the reality of politics. He asks you in his ads to read his economic plan on his website. Few could have done this as he expected because few are calling him out on his vague campaign promises that do not specify how he will pay for them or the reality that they may not be possible when presented to Congress. You are being hosed and do not appear to even be aware of it. That is, those of you who support Obama.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
UPDATE: While McCain floated Meg Whitman as a possible Treasury Secretary nominee and both candidates said Warren Buffett would be a reasonable choice, Obama as usual was guarded on his possible picks giving the article referenced in this post more relevance. That suggests he leans towards a typical Wall Street type or someone from his radical background. In either case it suggests the Dems plan to hold on to their agenda in the housing market that paid off many and caused the subprime meltdown. Again, the Carter signing into law of the Community Reinvestment Act, the Clinton signing into law of banking deregulation and Democrats’ opposition to housing reform in 2005 which McCain and others introduced and supported. So much for Obama’s plans to correct economic and financial problems.
Obama, an Illinois senator, said he would want to make sure that the next Treasury secretary shares his view that economic policy should focus on improving living standards for the middle class.
(Reuters report above from October 8, 2008)