Dueling Panels

Hillary Clinton wants an emergency working group of foreclosures:

The New York senator said the panel should be led by financial experts such as Robert Rubin, who was treasury secretary in her husband's administration, and former Federal Reserve chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker.

Obama's campaign is noting that they called for something similar a year ago, and according to the campaign "One key difference, however, is the diversity and representation that Obama called for – not just some of the same people who helped to create these problems or have a direct financial industry stake in the outcome." Specifically, he called for "summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge."

That doesn't seem like an earth-shattering difference in initial policy, but Obama's certainly picked up a certain tone-deafness in the Clinton "let's get together the people who caused the problem!" approach.

Comments

Unless Obama presses this fact, it's going to get lost anyway, and Hillary will get all the PR glory.

Posted by socctty | March 24, 2008 11:54 AM

And both are better than McThuselah's "Let me name-drop a bunch of guys to cover up the fact that I have absolutely no clue what I'm doing" response.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kqGWTh_NZ-0

Posted by Monster | March 24, 2008 11:56 AM

Atrios is right. WTF?????? Is Hillary making her campaign a sorry spectacle on purpose? While Volcker is certainly an acceptable choice, Greenspan surely isn't. Obama certainly has it right. Why put people on the board who caused this in the first place. Hell, why doesn't Hillary throw Jimmy Cayne's name in there while we are at it. Talk about a blue ribbon panel!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 24, 2008 11:59 AM

Obama's campaign is noting that they called for something similar a year ago, and according to the campaign "One key difference, however, is the diversity and representation that Obama called for – not just some of the same people who helped to create these problems or have a direct financial industry stake in the outcome."

Ironic, that: Obama’s campaign finance chair has links to subprime debacle

Posted by dry_fish | March 24, 2008 12:10 PM

I certainly don't like Greenspan, and personally would prefer that he not be included in any new "Committee to Save the World" but Greenspan is less responsible for the specific problem of subprime lending and home foreclosures, than he is for the overall atmosphere of cheap money and "market knows best" religion. Clinton's reason for including him on her committee was for reasons of (perhaps, lamentable but not a grounds on which Obama can safely criticize) bi-partisanship: Greenspan supports McCain.

More substantively, Clinton's full array of proposed governmental actions to take on the housing crisis is really impressive, despite the fact that the Bush Admin will never go for them. She doesn't deserve to be attacked for them. This is an issue where she's genuinely been more engaged than Obama.

Posted by dry_fish | March 24, 2008 12:25 PM

dry_fish:
Is it any wonder that Greenspan is supporting Mccain, given McCain's economic plan?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 24, 2008 12:33 PM

But... but... GE! GE! GE!

Posted by Pete-E | March 24, 2008 12:34 PM

Did you happen to notice this from the same article?:

The New York senator proposed greater protections for lenders from possible lawsuits by investors, a variation of so-called tort reform.

The New York Times had an article about the very business friendly Supreme Court under Roberts. Including Clinton's appointees.

In opinions last term, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter each went out of his or her way to question the use of lawsuits to challenge corporate wrongdoing — a strategy championed by progressive groups like Public Citizen but routinely denounced by conservatives as “regulation by litigation.” Conrad reeled off some of her favorite moments: “Justice Ginsburg talked about how ‘private-securities fraud actions, if not adequately contained, can be employed abusively.’ Justice Breyer had a wonderful quote about how Congress was trying to ‘weed out unmeritorious securities lawsuits.’ Justice Souter talked about how the threat of litigation ‘will push cost-conscious defendants to settle.’ ”

Examples like these point to an ideological sea change on the Supreme Court. A generation ago, progressive and consumer groups petitioning the court could count on favorable majority opinions written by justices who viewed big business with skepticism — or even outright prejudice. An economic populist like William O. Douglas, the former New Deal crusader who served on the court from 1939 to 1975, once unapologetically announced that he was “ready to bend the law in favor of the environment and against the corporations.”

Today, however, there are no economic populists on the court, even on the liberal wing.

Posted by Mike | March 24, 2008 12:38 PM

dry_fish,

Subprime loans are not bad in themselves. The problem is the way in which they were administered. Nevertheless, I agree with you that with respect to this front, she has overall been more engaged than Obama.

Posted by Micheline | March 24, 2008 12:41 PM

"That doesn't seem like an earth-shattering difference in initial policy, but Obama's certainly picked up a certain tone-deafness in the Clinton "let's get together the people who caused the problem!" approach."

and Michael O'Hanlon is one of her national security advisers, and she called for the estimable liar, Colin Powell to be an Ambassador to repair America's image. The Clinton candidacy is a promise to be a Restoration and not a change. We will have the DLC instead of the Republicans. Great.

Posted by della Rovere | March 24, 2008 12:50 PM

Ironic, that: Obama’s campaign finance chair has links to subprime debacle

Dry_Fish: Is that supposed to be a critique of his proposal? Unless his proposal is "I'm going to put my campaign finance chair [note: not a policy advisory position] who is in part responsible for the housing crisis in charge of the commission on mortgages," then the statement "I don't think we should put the people responsible for the problem [which would also include financial institution leaders and, oh yeah, Greenspan] in charge of the commission."

Unless I'm very confused, the person who helps raise money for Obama's campaign doesn't have anything to do with a stated intent to fill the commission with people like Specifically, he called for "... investors, ... consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies..."

Posted by jbryan | March 24, 2008 12:52 PM

Joe Klein's conscience,

No surprise at all. What's worse is McCain's obliviousness to the reality that The Street's opinion of Greenspan's legacy is clearly mixed, if not slightly trending negative:

Republican John McCain said Thursday that as president he would appoint Alan Greenspan to lead a review of the nation's tax code - even if the former Federal Reserve chairman was dead.

"If he's alive or dead it doesn't matter. If he's dead, just prop him up and put some dark glasses on him like, like 'Weekend at Bernie's,'" McCain joked. "Let's get the best minds in America together and fix this tax code."

Posted by dry_fish | March 24, 2008 12:52 PM

Count on a Democrat with autocratic tendencies like Hillary to propose regulatory 'solutions' that will do more harm than good in the long run. It's like she's never heard the words "unintended consequences". As for dropping Bob Rubin's name, that was the height of stupidity. Hillary has campaigned party on the prosperity of the mid-to-late 1990s, and her husband's administration's ostensible role in it. Why draw attention to her husband's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who was asleep at the switch while his employer, America's largest financial conglomerate, went off the rails during the current credit crisis? If he wasn't responsible for the current disaster, was he (and by extension, Clinton) responsible for the 90s prosperity?

Anywho, the simplest solution to the real estate mess at this point would be for the feds to buy up two-three hundred billion dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities at a significant discount to their face value, but at a higher price than the current value implied by the indexes used to estimate mark-to-market values (Central banks have already mooted this idea, according to the FT). The federal government could buy these securities up at a 50% discount to face and get the securitization market trading again. That would drive down mortgage rates finally and let many homeowners refinance their mortgages at low, fixed rates. And the government would be able to sell those securities for a profit, most likely, within a few years.

Posted by Fred | March 24, 2008 1:37 PM

"That would drive down mortgage rates finally and let many homeowners refinance their mortgages at low, fixed rates. And the government would be able to sell those securities for a profit, most likely, within a few years."

It's not the rates that matter, it's that their houses are no longer worth the value of the loan. Regardless of what we do house prices are falling because the homes in question aren't worth that much. It's unfortunate that some people will lose their house, but it's not like they are living on the street. Is it that bad that some people will have to go back to renting?

Posted by JordanT | March 24, 2008 1:58 PM

No matter what the problem, Hillary Clinton keeps rolling out another commission to solve it; a commission for this, that, and the other thing. Everything except: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 24, 2008 2:33 PM

"It's not the rates that matter, it's that their houses are no longer worth the value of the loan."

Depends on the homeowner. For the minority who have negative equity, then sure, lower rates won't make a difference. But for the majority of homeowners who don't have negative equity, particularly, those who do have variable rate mortgages (and can qualify for refinancing), lower rates will be big help. For those who lied about their income to get their 'liar loan' mortgages in the first place, and who, consequently, won't have the documentation to refinance, they'll have go back to being renters. But as you imply with your question, that won't be the end of the world.

Posted by Fred | March 24, 2008 2:41 PM