Yesterday, I observed the bizarre proposal by Sen. Clinton to hand over fixing the economic mess we’re in to the very people who helped create the mess (well, actually, for most workers we’ve been in an economic mess for a very long time–but you’all know that). I wasn’t trying to pick on Sen. Clinton per se–since I’m not clear that Sen. Obama wouldn’t turn to some of the same "emminent leaders" (Sen. Clinton’s term) or a similar cast of characters.
Indeed, in the Washington Post’s reporting of the back-and-forth between the campaigns, I found this:
The Obama campaign focused in particular on Clinton’s proposal to establish a high-level emergency working group to show that the government is "taking our economic crisis seriously." She suggested that the group include former Treasury secretary Robert E. Rubin and former Federal Reserve chairmen Paul A. Volcker and Alan Greenspan.
Aides to Obama distributed a letter the candidate sent last March to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson. In it, Obama suggested they convene a "homeownership-preservation summit" to address the foreclosure situation.
Obama aides also said Clinton is in no position to stiffen oversight after taking contributions from mortgage industry lobbyists, including funds from representatives of Countrywide, which has been at the center of the mortgage meltdown.
"If we’re really going to crack down on the practices that caused the credit and housing crises, we’re going to need a leader who doesn’t owe these industries any favors," campaign manager David Plouffe said. Clinton aides charged in turn that Obama had accepted more than $1 million in donations from firms involved in subprime lending and their employees.
Why does Sen. Obama think that handing over the leadership of a grand summit to Bernanke and Paulson promise any solutions that aren’t some version of continuing to bail-out big banks, without doing much for average people–not to mention address the fundamental problem that got us into the mess in the first place, i.e., de-regulation and the reliance on the "free market"–which both Benanke and Paulson seem unlikely to reject as a fundamental pillar of the economy?
