Barack Obama: The change that didn’t happen: One socialist point of view

[Better Believe It]

Barack Obama: The change that didn’t happen
Éric Toussaint, Daniel Munevar
International Viewpoint
August 2011

Eric Toussaint, president of CADTM Belgium (Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt, www.cadtm.org ), has a PhD in political science from the University of Liège (Belgium) and the University of Paris VIII (France). He is the author of Bank of the South. An Alternative to the IMF-World Bank, VAK, Mumbai, India, 2007.

Daniel Munevar is from CADTM Colombia. He is Member of the coordination of CADTM AYNA network.


------------------------------------

A large proportion of the millions of voters who supported him were expecting for the new elected president to appoint a team of progressive economists which would promote a modern version of the New Deal, with the objective of reforming capitalism and starting a new era of regulation of the economy. As it happened, reality was quite different. Obama instead decided to chose the most conservative economists close to the Democrats. Those responsible of promoting the de-regulation of the financial system under President Bill Clinton. When we stop and observe three emblematic names, the coherence of his choice is revealing.

Given the composition of the Obama administration’s economic team the path followed should not have represented any surprises. People directly responsible for the excesses of financial institutions in their capacity as regulators of the system, such as Timothy Geithner or Ben Bernanke, faced from the beginning serious conflicts of interest. Their interest rest squarely on concealing their responsibility rather than on promoting the implementation of measures aimed at overcoming the economic crisis. Losing sight of this element of individual responsibility, on political and legal terms, would prevent understanding how on the face of allegations of abuse by financial institutions in the eviction of families from their homes or speculation with the bailout funds provided by the government, The White House has defended the interests of Wall Street over and over again.

However, it is clear that the biggest capitulation to the financial sector was the Frank-Dodd Financial Reform Act. Missing on the opportunity to restrain the excesses of financial sector that was presented with the crisis, the Obama administration carried out the implementation of a reform that completely fails to impose controls on critical areas of operation of finance. Adopted in 2010, this law not only allows the use of dubious accounting practices which allow to hide losses in the balance sheets of financial institutions, but also strengthens the prerogatives of the institutions deemed "too big to fail". It also completely brushes aside the regulation of financial derivatives. It is this lenient attitude towards the financial sector by the Obama administration which allows to understand how not a single executive of the sector has been prosecuted for a financial collapse, that as early as 2004 the FBI had characterized as an epidemic of mortgage fraud.

Since taking control of the Congress in of November 2010, the Republicans have consistently blocked all of the initiatives brought forward by the Obama administration, taking full advantage of the control that the Congress has over the government budget and the debt ceiling. The Republican strategy of systematically blocking government efforts, thus decreasing the chances of its reelection, has reached its clearest expression with the ongoing battle to raise the Federal debt ceiling. A prerogative of the Congress of the United States, the debt ceiling sets a maximum amount of debt that can be issued by the Federal Government and was created as a mechanism to exercise control by the legislative branch of the government over the executive power. Historically, the increases of the debt ceiling have been carried out as an afterthought of the political process. However in the current situation, and as it was the case in 1995, the Republicans have used their control of Congress to force the government to make cuts in social spending at the risk of refusing to raise the debt limit. The 2nd of August, Obama gave in to their demands.

Read the full article at:

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2229

[adhd_what_huh]

1. what a total waste of time and effort.....blah...blah...blah

[Better Believe It]

2. I don't understand your point. Care to elaborate?

[adhd_what_huh]

3. cynical criticism masquerading as objective analysis is an insult to those that care about the

issues.

[girl gone mad]

4. Can you point to something you've written on the topic?

Please don't include me in your blanket descriptive "those that care about the issues".

I care deeply about this issue. I've followed it closely and have written about it for years, and I agree with this piece.

[adhd_what_huh]

5. Obama never claimed to be a Liberal and I never

though he would appoint a liberal cabinet or economic team. The article rest on the premise that he has behaved in a manor not in keeping with his history and has somehow deceived those who voted for him.

This article is the kind of disingenuous crap I expect to find on Fox News.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[adhd_what_huh]

9. No and you don't think that now. Spare me your

false choices...Obama the liberal or Obama the Wall street whore

[sabrina 1]

6. Then can you explain what it is you disagree with?

I found the article to be pretty explicit and definitely not cynical. What did they get wrong?

As one of those described as a supporter of this president in the article, I agree with the assessment of how many now feel.

[adhd_what_huh]

8. Here is one

The Dodd Frank bill is a good bill...unless you think Barny Frank is not liberal enough. It is such a good bill that it has yet to be funded and implemented due to the extensive lobbying efforts by all financial institutions. The author used this bill as the first example of Obamas reliance upon conservative Dem economic advisers. This is just ridiculous and makes me think the author and you the reader have no idea what the Dodd Frank bill actually is.

If you need another example...let me know.

[sabrina 1]

10. What about this do you disagree with?

Adopted in 2010, this law not only allows the use of dubious accounting practices which allow to hide losses in the balance sheets of financial institutions, but also strengthens the prerogatives of the institutions deemed "too big to fail". It also completely brushes aside the regulation of financial derivatives. It is this lenient attitude towards the financial sector by the Obama administration which allows to understand how not a single executive of the sector has been prosecuted for a financial collapse, that as early as 2004 the FBI had characterized as an epidemic of mortgage fraud.

I highlighted that sentence as I've seen this concern expressed many times before. Why are these practices still allowed? And why has not one single person been prosecuted for the corrupt, criminal activities that brought down this country's and the world's economy?

Are you aware of the Senate Committee's two year study on what caused the collapse of the economy? of Sen. Levin's recommendations that the matter should be referred to the DOJ as there was, he said, according to the Committee's findings, fraud, corruption and criminal activity? Has anything been done by the DOJ in response to this two-year Senate investigation? Has a single person been prosecuted yet? And if not, why not?

And what about the President's choice of Economic advisers? Why did he NOT choose a progressive team of advisers considering how much he must have known by then about who and what caused the meltdown?

[adhd_what_huh]

16. try this for info on regulations

http://www.cov.com/industry/financial_services/dodd_frank/derivatives_regulation/

[sabrina 1]

18. Yes, I'm familiar with the regulations. I'm also aware that

the main cause of the corruption and meltdown of the World's economy, has not been dealt with. Why not? Leaving that for the same crooks to use again, guarantees that they will. It was a weak bill, far too influenced by Wall St. lobbyists.

What they have done to this country's economy is the equivalent of an attack on this country, it was an Economic Weapon of Mass Destruction and required a response appropriate to the assault on this nation. Instead we got a weak bill with so many open doors for the criminals to push open, that it was like firing a dud at an heavily armed terrorist.

[flamingdem]

11. This bill is one of the reasons the S+P mafia decided to downgrade

All these articles appear now that cloud the truth of the players and their motives.

The financial pirates and their boy Mitt Romney want to get thing back their way, 100%

[adhd_what_huh]

17. try this for info on regulations

http://www.cov.com/industry/financial_services/dodd_frank/derivatives_regulation/

[Better Believe It]

12. And what controls do you think have been placed on derivatives under this bill?

Many Progressive economists have pointed out how weak the bill is and how it is being weakened even more as Wall Street writes the rules.

[adhd_what_huh]

15. try this for info on regulations

http://www.cov.com/industry/financial_services/dodd_frank/derivatives_regulation/

[alsame]

19. I know several Repubs in the banking industry. They all

wanted Glass-Steagall reinstated because they are afraid of another bank meltdown.

Dodd Frank is a band aid, nothing more.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bobbie Jo]

14. Completely by design.

Present "company" included.