- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Presidents from Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson have been quoted as more or less telling their political constituencies "I agree with you. Now make me do it" when it came to tackling the issues of their day where the right course of action was otherwise not politically tenable. Obama has the wrath of a wide swath of the American people in play and he knows it:
Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees — and, by extension, to themselves.“These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.”
But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”
“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
(Click my sig for the source of this quote/paraphrase.)
Why is Obama standing between the bankers and the (at least figurative) pitchforks? Why is he blowing so much political capital giving aid to the 'Masters of the Universe' that got us here while simultaneously pulling back from GM (258k jobs plus a multiplier of five to seven for tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers) when what is needed there (whether GM is effectively bankrupt or not) is such a pittance in comparison to what is being thrown at Wall Street?
To date, regardless of what some may hypothesize is the potential rate of recovery, the fact is that the US government is on the hook for $12,800,000,000.000.00 in some combination of appropriated expenditures, guarantees and loans. How much money is that? Well, in a nation of 300 million people, that's a tad more than 40 thousand dollars for every man, woman and child. 40 grand each. For all of us.
As far as Swagel's statement on critics ("...the next sentence should set forth the section of the U.S. legal code that allows such a course of action"), well, no. They have much authority that has not been used and there is much leeway (with Supreme Court rulings to back it up) for what the government may do to salvage a situation in the midst of a national emergency.
I appreciate that it's a difficult situation, and nothing here is simple, but the argument about political cover and the argument which says in effect "our hands are tied" simply does not stand close scrutiny. Now...where's my pitchfork.
