One thing that I haven't seen: work more closely with Obama's transitional economics team than an outgoing president usually does.
Everything I've seen about Bush and the transition indicates that he has been entirely classy. But right now, classy is not enough. The more publicly he is seen to coordinate with the Obama team, the more reassuring it will be to markets. And it's up to the Bush administration to push this--the Obama team can't do so without looking panicky, and spreading that panic to others.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I disagree, MM. The markets are, in part, anticipating what's going to happen after Jan 20th. Anything W does between now and then is largely immaterial.
Now, say BO where to say that he was going to take action to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, rather than to let them expire in 2010, I think you'd see a huge impact to the market volatility.....but then, BO would show what a farce his candidacy was from the get-go.
I agree whole heartedly and this is why it will not happen.
If the Bush administration were to talk frankly to the Obama administration about the situation, there would be leaks along the lines of "Bush Completely Clueless About (Fill-In-The-Blank)".
I think we can blame both sides for this. On the one hand, the Obama administration should be trustworthy enough that the Bush administration could be confident that there would be no leaks. Unfortunately, the first thing that happened when Bush and Obama met was that there was a leak.
On the other hand the crisis is serious enough that the Bush administration shouldn't let the possibility of embarrassing leaks keep it from trying to help fix the crisis.
Alas, things are as they are.
The markets don't need reassurance. The markets don't need confidence. The markets need money.
Whose got it? Uncle Sam, except he has to borrow it. No new net money that way. How about all that sideline money. In the money markets. Well can't take that out because it isn't there.
Show me the money. Say it louder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaiSHcHM0PA
Really? It will be good for the markets if it looks like Dubya is really involved in transition? That seems ... counterintuitive to say the least. Every time Bush speaks on the teevee, the market tanks again.
We all know "bipartisan" means "do it the liberal's way"
Lord Obama already skipped to the front of the line on vapor, and I'm sure the country will be just fine until his "team of change" and Hillary get back to the Whitehouse.
How does Bush do this without looking panicky and spreading that panic to others?
Presumably Austan Goolsbee saying:
won't help all that much. "We've tried not having a stimulus... We’ve tried not giving tax cuts to ordinary Americans." Really, Professor Goolsbee? What was that thing in the middle of the year? It certainly may not have worked, but it was the same sort of stimulus he seems to be calling for. "[T]hey resisted the idea of economic recovery?"
the best thing bush can do for the economy is retreat to an undisclosed location until Jan. 20th (and take Cheney with him).
yes, it sucks not to have a president during a financial meltdown. But a potted plant is still better than the shittest, most incompetent, most disastrous leader in American history.
of course, precisely because Bush is so shitty, incompetent, and disastrous, he'll do nothing of the sort. i shudder in my bones to think about how much more damage this guy will do before he leaves office. Three weeks since the election and he's already looted a trillion dollars from the treasury.
in a righteous world we'd be burning him and all his cronies at the stake. And using the blubber of Wall Street bankers for fuel.
p.s. no, bush should not "coordinate" with the incoming president. The Bush administration is a fatal disease that poisons everything it touches. keep obama as far away as possible!!
I think that the bailout (as reported by New Yorker and elsewhere) is in large part Bush doing nothing more than what Paulson wanted. And of course Obama supported the bailout and has been appointing people who were in favor of it to high positions, no?
Just from the comments above, it seems that any Bush involvement will either provide legitimacy to or discredit whatever hair-brained scheme the Obamites are cooking-up.
Hard to see any clear-cut way this will help.
John Thacker: Minister of the Treasury Paulson does seem to be running things nowdays, doesn't he? but at the end of the day he still works for bush and there's nothing he does which Bush opposes.
i don't oppose a bailout in principle. nobody wants the financial sector to collapse. the question is what are bush and his cronies doing with all of our bailout money???? trillions are being pissed away in giveaways to corrupt bankers as we speak, and to little practical effect. This is theft.
and i doubt obama will do what's necessary either, until he's forced to.
At this point, absolutely everything and anything that Bush does will be the equivalent (to borrow Krugman's favorite metaphor) of pushing on a string. I suspect he could order a nuclear strike on Iran right now and the generals would at once laugh and go back to whatever it was they were doing. He could ride down Pennsylvania Ave. naked, on a horse, Lady Godiva style, and it would be the seventh item on the evening news. Assassins rush to the White House fence on a regular basis, only to sigh, 'Aw, what's the point?' and walk away dejectedly. He has to ask Laura to tie his tie because his reflection has ceased to show up in the mirror; and the fact that his shadow has gone missing has yet to motivate anyone to go track it down. His soul is already back in Crawford, on the ranch, drinking Bartles and Jaymes and watching the sun set slowly over the dead pond; the figure you see on tv at the White House is just a body, twitching its way through its daily routine.
Well, I think Bush has done all he could, and Ms. McArdle will have to live with her new-found political allies like raft, half devil and half child.
Megan,
President Bush did invite President-elect Obama to the G-20 economic meeting the week before last; if President-elect Obama wanted to work more closely with the Bush administration on the transition, it would have made sense for him to attend, and not just send a couple of surrogates.
John Thacker makes a good point above as well. Someone needs to tell Goolsbee that the campaign is over, as is the time for putting partisanship before facts. He was smug and dishonest on CNBC today.
The transition aspect would help. But the biggest problem is that Obama's team has a plan that the Bush team wouldn't back, uhh ever. The Bush team thus far has only pumped money at these banks and AIG. This did not produce the desired effect of opening up credit because of how hollow these businesses balance sheet were. Now its like they're leaning entirely on Paulson, yeah it always works out when you pin your hopes to one guy. His big thing seems to be restoring the finance mechanism, if so he needs to facilitate some of the cannibalism that ought to occur, and let Obama break them back into little pieces. For his part Paulson seems to be trying to act in concert with Bernanke, and I bet they're both saying "oh, this is going to really hurt, and it won't be enough."
That's Austan "startle the thing into submission" Goolsbee, right? Yeah that'll work.
Note that Hoover explicitly asked Roosevelt to work with him after becoming President-elect. Roosevelt declined. Would Obama?
It's worth reading John Hussman's thoughts on how to deal with the economic crisis. For those unfamiliar with him, Dr. Hussman is a professor of economics at the University of Michigan (he earned his Ph.D. at Stanford) and also runs a mutual fund company. His equity fund is one of the top performers this year due to his prudent hedging. From his current Market Commentary:
Megan says: "Everything I've seen about Bush and the transition indicates that he has been entirely classy. "
Classy? The piece of shit is installing his flunkies in civil service jobs and making busy work for Obama by installing dumbass policies Obama will have to countermand once he gets in. That's an odd definition of classy.
But I suppose we can be thankful he hasn't (so far) started a war with Iran just for one last war criminal emission before he crawls off into the intestine of history. Which can't happen enough, because the prick has been a disaster, and his remaining apologists are delusional scumbags.
I heard Goolsbee on NPR, he sounded like an ass. I had heard some good things about him, tghey were false. Perhaps he is angry these days about Obama pushing him aside for other economic advisors.
Bush is doing what an honorable man would do in this situation. He is not starting any projects that Obama would want to overturn. He is not rushing to spend all the TARP money. etc
Plus anything that he tried to do would be savaged by Pelosi, Franks, Reid, Waxman etc. Why fight for anything that you know would be instantly blocked.
Bush had a radio address about helping the auto industry and most of the press ignored his comments and only covered the Obama speech that day
Okay, guys: Yes, Bush hasn't been a very good president. I didn't vote for him and I don't approve of the job he's done. But Jesus Christ... if you can't write a sentence without a crude personal attack and a slew of curse words, maybe the intelligence and character of others isn't something you should be attacking.
Or, you know, maybe you're right. Maybe Bush ran for president so he could intentionally destroy the country. He started wars just on the hope that a distant fraternity buddy could get a no-bid job in Iraq and make an extra $100,000. Maybe he gets a kick out of killing American soldiers and will try to start another war just to see more die. Maybe he will try to get the treasury to print $500 Trillion in cash so he can hand it all over to Dick Cheney.
Maybe he is the "shittest, most incompetent, most disastrous leader in American history". Maybe "we can be thankful he hasn't (so far) started a war with Iran just for one last war criminal emission before he crawls off into the intestine of history. Which can't happen enough, because the prick has been a disaster, and his remaining apologists are delusional scumbags."
Or, you know, maybe you guys are just morons without the slightest grasp of reality. Maybe.
JeffW,
You seem to miss the very real advantage of crudity and cursing. It is a big flashing neon sign in a post that tells us the poster is really just a high school student, mentally at least, and can thus be ignored.
It counters the problem caused by having the posters "name" at the bottom, rather than the top of the post. If they were at the top, we could just skip known trolls and troll-like-creatures.
As it is, as soon as someone calls Bush a "shit" or Obama a "communist" or whatever, we can safely skip to the next comment, without fear of missing any actual intellectual content.
JeffW puts on his apron and says: "Or, you know, maybe you're right. Maybe Bush ran for president so he could intentionally destroy the country. He started wars just on the hope that a distant fraternity buddy could get a no-bid job in Iraq and make an extra $100,000. Maybe he gets a kick out of killing American soldiers and will try to start another war just to see more die. Maybe he will try to get the treasury to print $500 Trillion in cash so he can hand it all over to Dick Cheney."
Based on his performance in office, what exactly is implausible about any of that?
He accomplished those things, after all. Why should anyone believe that Dumbya really wanted good things for America, or for the majority of its people? There is really very little in his record to suggest that he did.
Instead of pissing your pants over what you regard as gutter language, why not try to defend the shitty record of your dumbass motherfucking hero on its merits? Ah, but of course you can't, since he's been an immense failure. The Dumbya presidency has been a series of minor fuckups punctuated by major catastrophes. And you and your fellow wingnuts can't bring yourselves to admit that, so you bitch about vulgarity.
Seriously, chuckles - fuck you. And the supply-side assholes you rode in on.
Ah, MoeLarry, once again proving that Bush's current evaluation by a bunch of herd-followers is about as meaningful as "hope" and "change."
he has been entirely classy.
What does this mean? He's speaking with a slight British accent? He's sipping tea with this pinkie (finger) out? He's wearing pants? Is "classy" the best word here or did I miss something?
Basic Fuct writes: "Ah, MoeLarry, once again proving that Bush's current evaluation by a bunch of herd-followers is about as meaningful as "hope" and "change.""
I'm sure those words hold no meaning for you, chuckles. You're hopeless and you'll never change.
I'm sure you and Sean Hannity will share many special moments together over the next 4 years.
90 days of panic is no reason to upset the apple cart. President Bush has been working with the transition team, and with an eye to the transition before the election. Anything he does now is purely cosmetic and not likely to change matters. President Bush is still in office and has an obligation to rule, not make nice.
I don't think Obama will walk into the White House Jan 20 and find all the O's missing from the keyboards. Republicans are too classy to pull childish pranks like that.
What should Bush do?
Send U.S. soldiers to invade a non-threatening country!
Declare Mission Accomplished!
Enact massive, regressive, budget crippling tax cuts!
Get a Kindle!
Torture!
Appoint cronies and religious zealot know-nothings to key government postiions!
Get a Wii!
Ignore PDBs which outline terrorist threats!
Pretend to know about economics but admit that the math is hard for a history major!
Get an Iphone!
Eat a pretzel!
Ignore advice from seasoned politicians in lieu of prayer!
Turn to pseudo-libertarian, pseudo-intellectual blogger frauds for advice!
I don't think Obama will walk into the White House Jan 20 and find all the O's missing from the keyboards.
What are you talking about?
>I don't think Obama will walk into the White House Jan 20 and find all the O's missing from the keyboards.
>What are you talking about?
(Smile) Apparently Ed wasn't around when Clinton left office. Anyone else remember the handsets glued to the phones? Or the missing toothpaste?
(Smile) Apparently Ed wasn't around when Clinton left office. Anyone else remember the handsets glued to the phones? Or the missing toothpaste?
Link? With photos, if possible. Thanks in advance.
What is the status of repealing the "mark to market" rule for financial institutions? The beancounters (and I yam one) need to rethink this rule in an "ordinary course of business" frame.
Can you imagine if a manufacturer had to write down his inventory of raw material to zero because he couldn't sell it all on Dec. 31st?
I don't think Obama will walk into the White House Jan 20 and find all the O's missing from the keyboards. Republicans are too classy to pull childish pranks like that.
Posted by Charles | November 25, 2008 9:32 AM
--------------------------------
Clinton left Bush with a budget surplus and (according to legend) missing W's from White House keyboards. Bush is leaving Obama with the economy in a shambles and two wars.
I guess I'd prefer competent over classy, if I had to choose.
Ed, if someone has to explain to you what the missing O's mean, stick to the talking points that fit your frame of reference, your 9:32 post.
Bush should do nothing visible. It wouldn't matter anyway, the press has pretty much ignored him since Iraq started to turn, and put their focus on the Dem primary. Besides anything he did at this point would be would be viewed by the press as an attempt to upstage Obama, and the press will not let that happen.
Bush had two things working against him, both self inflicted. His public speaking skills suxs, and could not persuade those that were resistant to his vision. The second was, he just refused to ever defend himself.
So, the Obama people can't push this to the tight-as-a-steel-drum Bush White House, because the transition team is leaky as a sieve, and it would get out and prompt a panic?
I'm guessing these trogs are going on about the totally, completely discredited rumor that the outgoing Clinton staff 'trashed' the offices. Not so, according to the GAO:
This was, btw, quite clear early on. Note the signature Bush trademark of coyly refusing to confirm or deny, but repeating the meme "we have to move on." Meaning, we have to move on after the smear has been applied, rather than look into it's truth or falsity. Here's another article:
Given the behaviour exhibited over the last eight years, I'd have a crew videotaping everything during the transition. I'd also have them make copies of all the hard drives, and then have each and every computer completely wiped and the software reloaded from sealed bubble packages.
I doubt that Obama particularly wants to work closely with the Bush team in a visible way.
First of all, it would make them look like peers, and as if Obama's people may actually have something to learn from the previous administration.
Second of all, whatever honeymoon Obama is going to have, it hasn't even started yet. So getting the stock market back up now isn't going to win him any points. The lower it is on January 20, then there is more room for improvement (or less room for further losses) after he takes office. So I doubt Obama is particularly interested in an improving stock market just yet.
Nice idea Dave (8:59 pm). Appreciation though?
"I guess I'd prefer competent over classy, if I had to choose."
Don't confuse luck with competence. Ten years ago, Clinton's economic policy was called 'Rubinomics' after his genius Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Since then, Rubin has helped drive America's largest financial institution into a ditch, requiring the U.S. government to extend a jaw-dropping $350 billion lifeline.
Ed, if someone has to explain to you what the missing O's mean, stick to the talking points that fit your frame of reference, your 9:32 post.
I'll take those links now. They shouldn't be hard to find.
Wait, never mind. Scent of Violets brought some links. And you got pwn3d, wilky. Heh-heh.
Since then, Rubin has helped drive America's largest financial institution into a ditch, requiring the U.S. government to extend a jaw-dropping $350 billion lifeline.
Right. Phil Gramm deregulation and lack of oversight or foresight from the Cheney Administration had nothing to do with the collapse. Good to know the next ridiculous talking point from Wingnuttia. Thanks.
Don't confuse luck with competence.
And don't confuse bluster for incompetence. Some of us could see the George Bush, Jr. et al for what they were from the get go. We know where you were/are.
ben: The transition aspect would help. But the biggest problem is that Obama's team has a plan that the Bush team wouldn't back, uhh ever.
Really? A plan to deal with the economy?
I can see plans to not "let a serious crisis go to waste":
1) We must do Something.
2) [This] is Something.
3) Therefore, we must do [this].
"in a righteous world we'd be burning him and all his cronies at the stake. And using the blubber of Wall Street bankers for fuel."
- - -
If in a righteous world we'd all be living in caves, bartering spears for food and wondering when the local warlord was going to swoop down and take our women and kill us guys, yeah, that'd be a great plan.
Unless your Obama has some loaves-and-fishes abilities I somehow overlooked . . .
"Right. Phil Gramm deregulation..."
How can one Senator deregulate anything? I wasn't aware that a Senator had the power to change the law on his own. Are you referring to something President Clinton signed into law?
Fred:
One Senator can't; I never said one could.
No.
What were you referring then, Ed?
"Enact massive, regressive, budget crippling tax cuts!"
Link me an article that shows the rich payed less tax and the middle class payed more under Bushs tax cuts.
What were you referring then, Ed?
What do you thing I was referring to?
You tell me, Ed. You used the phrase "Phil Gramm deregulation". When I asked you if you were referring to something Bill Clinton signed into law, you said no. Since we both agree that a Senator can't change the law on his own, I'm not sure what you were referring to.
Well take a stab. You're a big boy.
Bush should push to change the Tax Code to allow 35% Tax Credit, not deduction, for entire house payment, not just interest.
The deduction for INTEREST (only) encouraged too much house debt.
Bush should stop bailing out bankers -- the Fed can loan to small banks that don't need the money.
Remember -- banks LIKE to loan to customers that don't need it. Big banks 'need' it, do NOT give it to them. They're bad risks.
Your ability to defend your previous statements is quite impressive, ed. Quite impressive, indeed...
There is nothing that president Bush can do now. pResident Obama is doing his to best to talk down the US economy, and to make things worse before his inaguration. It makes perfect sense to him, since it is obvious he needs to lower the expectations for his presidency. If he can persuade American people that he was fighting with Great Depression - then even 10% unemployment in 2012 could look like a blessing. It's pretty obvious.
Your ability to defend your previous statements is quite impressive, ed. Quite impressive, indeed...
What do you mean?
And? Maybe Obama thinks Bush couldn't handle a secret?
ANd, worse. Like a drunk, more than a trillion dollars has been going out to wall street bankers; to bail them out from the stinking loans they made. And, where Moody's and Standard an Poor, took this "collateralized garbage" worth zero. And, stuck Triple AAA ratings on top.
Obama has his hands full. Including inheriting the presidency from a boob worse than Herbert Hoover.
What's classy by you, anyway? Bush, in 2000 did not win the popular vote. More than 2000 Florida voters, because of a ballot flaw, in JEWISH NEIGHBORHOODS, voted instead for BUCHANAN! You think that passed the smell test?
What's classy, here, really? You want Bush to have a piece of the pie. His party lost. And, took such a hit that it's possible "BUSH WILL BE YOUR LAST CLASSY GUY TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY; leaving instead a long dry spell.
First mistake? Rush thought if he could convince a whole bunch of "his people." Counting into the millions down south ... He could, by suggesting they register as democrats, bounce Hillary out of the contest. Yup. That did happen. But someone forgot: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
Instead? McCain thought this country would never vote in a Black guy! And, McCain was wrong. Obama won decisively. And, he won over 360 electoral collage votes, too. (All he needed was 270).
Nope, we didn't re-run 2000. We didn't even have a voter's response like we saw in 2004. And, yes, Rush Limbaugh's reasoning was flawed.
Bush wants a piece of Obama's action? After he called him loose lipped? You must be kidding.
Why so coy, Ed? You're the one who brought up "Phil Gramm regulation", so why not say what you mean? What are you afraid of?
What are you afraid of?
I might ask you the same thing?
I'm sure The Atlantic can find a better blogger than this vacuous ninny.
Shorter ed- "I got caught saying something dumb, bluff my way out".
This trillion dollars you speak of that Bush magically got his hands on, how in the world did the democratic controlled congress let that happen?
MoeLarryAndJesus- Keep up the good fight! Be a poor winner! Let Obama know that you think that whole working together thing is a pile of shit. Don't worry about your near fatal lack of reading comprehension.
"I might ask you the same thing?"
Give it up, Ed. You were obviously alluding to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. If you want to regurgitate the claim that that act was a proximate cause of the current financial crisis, then your invidious comparison of the Bush to Clinton collapses, because it was Clinton, and not Bush, who signed Gramm-Leach-Blilely into law. If anything, Clinton was a bigger deregulator than Bush; Bush, after all, signed into law Sarbanes-Oxley, which attempted to close the loopholes that led to the Enron and Worldcom scandals perpetrated on Clinton's watch.
This trillion dollars you speak of that Bush magically got his hands on, how in the world did the democratic controlled congress let that happen?
Point to where I spoke of this?
Give it up, Ed.
Give what up? What are you talking about?
"Give what up? What are you talking about?"
The "Phil Gramm deregulation" you brought up in this post.
Done playing dumb now?
The "Phil Gramm deregulation" you brought up in this post.
Done playing dumb now?
How do you know that was what I was talking about anyway?
Ed,
You lost. Give it up.
How do you know that was what I was talking about anyway?
He doesn't. That's why he asked "What were you referring then, Ed?" For mysterious reasons which I am sure we are all eager to learn, you have declined to answer this question.
What were you talking about when you wrote "Phil Gramm deregulation"?
You lost. Give it up.
Now I'm just confused. But you nailed one thing: we all dodged a bullet when Palin lost and kept this Phil Gramm character out a Palin Administration. As you note, that guy's bad news.
If you want to regurgitate the claim that that act was a proximate cause of the current financial crisis, then your invidious comparison of the Bush to Clinton collapses, because it was Clinton, and not Bush, who signed Gramm-Leach-Blilely into law.
That was a stupid thing to do, and it happened in November of 1999. Here we note the frantic politicking done by Republicans over the last eight years to attempt to defuse this ticking time bomb, only to be defeated again and again by iron-jawed Democrats.
As for what Dumbya should do now - I think wandering door to door in Iraq collecting for Christian charities would be a great start.
Just a suggestion.
Here we note the frantic politicking done by Republicans over the last eight years to attempt to defuse this ticking time bomb, only to be defeated again and again by iron-jawed Democrats.
You know, considering the actual attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie that Republicans wanted and Democrats refused to budge on, it's hard for me to tell if Righteous Bubba is a right-winger exaggerating something that wouldn't have been sufficient to stop all problems or a left-winger being ignorant about Gramm-Leach, which had even less of an effect on the actual problems. Bill Clinton realizes that; that's why he continues to defend the Act, since it had nothing to do with any of the issues involved.
I realize that both sides would prefer to pick on particular bete noirs (the CRA also comes in for overly large attacks from conservatives) rather than look at actual causes, but it gets a little ridiculous.
But ben, President-elect Obama's Treasury Secretary-designate, Timothy Geithner, is a friend and ally of Paulson who has been heavily involved in the bailout, especially of Citi. See for example the Washington Post on this. Their mutual friend, Robert Rubin, was of course heavily involved.
The idea that the President-elect is unalterably opposed to the current bailout process seems unsupportable; not only has he not said a word against it (and voted for it), but he's currently naming to his cabinet people who have helped structure it and who have been in favor of it. Nor has Congress been in a rush to establish any oversight of the bailout, though I absolutely agree that they should and it's a travesty. But it seems that Timothy Geithner under President Obama will continue exactly as Secretary Paulson.
When will the myth that Bush did anything about deregulation end?
At Fannie and Freddie it was Franks, Dodd, and Maxine who fought against greater prudent oversight.
It was Rubin who fought for the deregulations that directly led to the credit swap problems.
This from the International Herald Tribune
Instead of deregulation, Obama has sworn to usher in a period of re-regulation, to avoid the freewheeling risks that Citigroup and the rest of the financial industry undertook after Rubin, with Summers, helped tear down the regulatory walls between banks, brokerages and insurance companies, and freed them to trade in unregulated and little-understood derivatives worth trillions of dollars.
So if you want to blame Bush, blame him for not taking on the Wall Street bankers who for the last decade have been heavy contributors the Democrats.
I can't get up the energy to delve into the mental disorders that must be involved in refusing to comprehend the disasters that Boy George, and St. Ronnie have brought to this country, but I would like to clarify one historical thing alluded to above.
After the 1932 election, Hoover made public statements about bipartisanship and his willingness to work with Roosevelt on the economy. When Roosevelt's people contacted Hoover, it turned out that "bipartisanship" consisted in Roosevelt's agreeing to lock in place Hoover's laughably inadequate Republican answer to the depression.
Roosevelt, for obvious reasons, decided to wait that one out.