BILL CLINTON REVISITS HIS ECONOMIC LEGACY.
At a meeting with progressive bloggers and journalists at the Sheraton New York Monday night, Bill Clinton, preparing for the opening of his Clinton Global Initiative conference, spoke freely about the financial crisis, and re-examined his own administration's economic legacy in light of the meltdown.
"I have thought about that," Clinton told me when I asked whether he was reconsidering any of the deregulatory economic policies his administration pursued under Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Earlier this year, Rubin downplayed the extent of the mortgage crisis, and implied more of the blame could be placed on American consumers than on the excesses of Wall Street. But Clinton's assessment was quite different.
"I actually called Bob Rubin," Clinton said, relaying their recent conversation about what could or should have been done differently during the 1990s to help prevent today's crisis. Clinton said he has two regrets: First, not pursuing more aggressively an aborted attempt to provide stricter oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to Clinton, the move was stymied by Democratic and Republican members of Congress and by mayors, who saw the lending giants as "the New Jerusalem" and "pure" because of their role in increasing homeownership to historic levels. But "it just didn't feel good," Clinton said of Fannie and Freddie's outsized political influence.
Clinton also said he should have subjected derivative trading to more public oversight. "We would have failed, but at least we could've sounded the alarm."
One policy Clinton said he doesn't regret is his 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which, for the first time since the Depression, allowed commercial banks to engage in investment-banking activities. Clinton said the commercial banks were an important moderating force on the risk-taking of the big investment firms that collapsed this week. "In the case of the current crisis, I believe the bill I signed allowed Bank of America to take over Merrill Lynch," he said.
Also during the interview, Clinton urged congressional Democrats to work quickly to pass a bailout package for Wall Street, but said Democrats must lobby in the current weeks to pass a comprehensive package of "Main Street" economic measures, including a moratorium on foreclosures, and should create a homeowners' loan corporation similar to the one active during the Depression. Such an agency would refinance sub-prime mortgages into traditional ones but should do so only for borrowers with steady incomes, Clinton said. During the Democratic primary campaign, his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, supported similar measures.
The former president mentioned his wife frequently during the meeting, sharing her thoughts on how the economic crisis was playing differently in her home state, New York, than in Kentucky, where she recently traveled to campaign for Democrat Bruce Lunsford, who is hoping to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "Hillary called and said it's really interesting how this is going down [in Kentucky]," Clinton said. "She said, out here, they don't yet see it as a big crisis requiring an urgent response, because they've been in trouble for years."
That is why, Clinton reiterated, Democrats must sell the bail-out of Wall Street as an investment in regular Americans' retirement savings and the security of their mortgages.
--Dana Goldstein
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (6)
"In the case of the current crisis, I believe the bill I signed allowed Bank of America to take over Merrill Lynch,"
That's right, now BofA will be doing the things that ML did to bring about the crisis.
Contraction, not expansion or preservation of the finance industry, is what is needed now.
Posted by: skeptonomist | September 22, 2008 11:26 PM
Oh, and thanks for NAFTA too, Bill ol' boy.
Posted by: Third Horse | September 23, 2008 3:39 AM
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, the era of big government is over, but the era of big government bailouts for Wall Street has just begun.
Everything hinges on how much the Democrats are listening to their Wall Street buddies like Rubin (who ran Goldman Sachs).
If they don't make taxpayer equity ownership of bailed out institutions a make or break part of the deal, it means they listened to them.
Posted by: Peter K. | September 23, 2008 12:06 PM
One of the things that has bothered me in this whole mess is that people complain that their 401k investments may go down. Huh, isn't investing your money a RISKY endeavor wherein your money might actually (perish the thought) go down? I was always taught that if you wanted security- stay out of the market. Was I that stupid? Heck, if I had known investments always go up- I would have put all my money in!
Posted by: bokun59 | September 23, 2008 12:25 PM
Sometimes, I wonder what it means to be a progressive. "I got mine and I don't give a shit about the rest of the world" somehow just doesn't cut it. We can object to NAFTA and other free trade treaties. We can complain about those damn chinese and indians taking our jobs....but what they are doing is improving their lives.
Yes, this means, I can't go to some third world country and stay in a nice hotel for a 5 dollars...I may actually have to pay 20 dollars or so for a decent hotel.
But the problem for american workers is not free trade...it is our unwillingness to share and take care of them when they are down.
If it makes you happy to blame Clinton and NAFTA for you problems, suit yourself. But I am not sure you can call yourself a progressive if you believe that workers in other parts of the world don't deserve the same opportunities that we have had.
Posted by: Sam Jackson | September 23, 2008 11:23 PM
Sam, thanks!!NAFTA works for us all! Its objectors just don't look at matters in perspective; think how supply side voodoo works.
Posted by: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth [skeptic griggsy] | September 24, 2008 3:04 PM