How about Robert Reich for Secretary of the Treasury?

[Sebastian Doyle]

I've brought this up in a couple of threads already, but I thought it deserved it's own. He's certainly a better choice than any name I've heard mentioned so far.

Now more than ever we need someone in charge of the Treasury who is NOT a Wall Street tool who believes unregulated predatory capitalism is the answer. Reich gets that.

Check out his take on the recent Wall Street bailout

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/21/what_wall_street_should_do_to/index.php

[4lbs]

1. He was in the Clinton administration.

To some people that should automatically disqualify someone from being in the Obama administration.

Not me, as I don't care about all that garbage, but to some it's an automatic disqualifier.

[uponit7771]

2. He's not a supply sider and not a free marketer but I would like to know what he thought about

...Glass-Steagal and Clinton signing of the act.

[Jennicut]

18. He left in early 1997 and was not labor secretary then (1999)

[fujiyama]

3. I've always liked Reich

He seems like a good guy. He'd make a good Treasury Secretary IMO.

[druidity33]

4. fine by me... nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

5. Sheila Bair

She's the only one of the money people I'd trust; she has current experience; and there's the token Repub.

[ellacott]

14. I just did a google search on her

I was not familiar with her. She sounds very qualified. Her experience would certainly help with this mortgage crisis.

She sounds like she may be a good choice. Thank you for throwing her name out and making me do a little research. :)

[Perky]

6. I love Bob Reich but he apparently is not a particularly good manager

He was at DOL and apparenlot left the runing of the organization to others ad sort of checked out of the role. Once a wonk always a wonk I suppose.


Make him Chairman of the COuncil of Econmic advisors

[Skwmom]

28. So, you team him up with a subordinate that is.

A wonk is what is needed at the top making the decisions. Give him a subordinate that is great at the management part.

[CTyankee]

39. I agree. Obama needs someone liked by the cooler heads on Wall Street.

Like Robert Rubin was to the Clinton Administration. Reich would probably be regarded as too much of an academic and too far to the left.

Whatever we've got left on Wall St. that has a brain cell operating has to feel OK with Obama, IMHO.

That said I like Reich a lot, as a commentator and as one of his advisors.

[mmonk]

7. He would make an excellent choice. He needs to be more than

just an advisor. I would like him to be in the cabinet somewhere.

[ladjf]

8. He has a great mind and would be an asset in most any post. nt

[trayfoot]

9. Sounds good to me!

[AmyCamus]

10. Why not? Obama loves the Clinton people. (Well, now that is...)

Barack is probably going to re-hire Monica next.

[Skwmom]

12. Oh please. Qualified Clintonites should not be excluded.

So if someone held a low level position in the Clinton World they should be excluded b/c they happened to have worked in the admin?

[Honeycombe8]

13. No danger there! LOL LOL! Not even a POSSIBILITY of a Clintonite being excluded.nt

[AmyCamus]

19. If I wanted another Clinton adinistration, I would've voted for another Clinton.

The short-term memory loss rampant with the he-can-do-no-wrongs needs treatment.

[Skwmom]

25. I think you have a valid point which is why I said they should have to

be brilliant, ethical, and not part of the decision makers that drove us in the ditch.

The brilliance of the Clinton admin is a myth, but why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[Jennicut]

20. AmyCamus is nuts, there is no reasoning there.

[AmyCamus]

32. "AmyCamus is nuts"? For thinking Obama will keep his "Change" promise?

Maybe I was "nuts" to think he meant it in the first place.

[Jennicut]

35. In all of your 253 posts, have you said anything nice about Obama?

Maybe you should have voted for the equally nutty Bob Barr. My sister in law was going to until I told her how nutty he really was.

[Mass]

22. Reich is not a Clinton person. Where do you want to find the cabinet?

from the phone book? Whether you like it or not, the latest people who have some experience in government have worked with in the Clinton administration. Some have not moved on and these are the ones we should avoid. Others have moved on and they are just fine choices.

[Honeycombe8]

30. But he WAS in the Clinton admin., wasn't he? I think he was. nt

[AmyCamus]

31. "not a Clinton person"???

Dude. Read the material.

[Mass]

33. That is persuasive indeed. I have read enough of Reich to know

he has different view of the economy than a Rubin or a Larry Summers or all these deregulators who plagued the Clinton administration. May be you should get informed.

[AmyCamus]

34. He's been a friend of the Clintons for 4 decades, was in the admin for 5 years.

The spin you pro-Clinton people are putting on every retro-Clinton move Obama makes is bizzare.

[Mass]

36. Me? a pro-Clinton person? LOL. I think most Clinton people here would call me a Clinton hater.

But thanks for playing.

[Sebastian Doyle]

37. Since I'm the one who started this thread, let me jump in here.....

I'm not on the "pro Clinton" (DLC) team by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, Robert Reich was previously employed in the Clinton administration. As Secretary of Labor. He had nothing to do with the "kinder, gentler" DLC version of trickle down economics practiced by the Rubin/Summers crowd.

Reich predicting the disaster of Hank Paulson back in March 2008....

Monday, March 31, 2008
Hank Paulson's Punt

It’s being called the broadest overhaul of Wall Street regulation since the Great Depression. But look closely at the proposal announced this morning by Treasury chief Hank Paulson, and you’ll find a thin veneer of regulatory filagree -- designed to appease a public outraged by the mismanagement of its savings and the taxpayer-financed bailout of Wall Street’s well-padded executives, but also, sadly, designed to accomplish just about nothing.

Paulson rearranges and consolidates lots of regulations and seems to beef up the oversight responsibilities of the Federal Reserve. But the Fed would not routinely examine the books of investment banks and hedge funds the way bank examiners now scrutinize regular banks, and agencies like the SEC would actually lose some of their current authority.

Most significantly, the proposal doesn’t call for investment banks, hedge funds, and other currently unregulated financial institutions to hold capital assets proportional to the risks they’re taking on. That’s the case even though the Fed has now subjected taxpayers to the risk of bailing out any large financial institution that gets into trouble because it doesn’t have enough capital to back up its risky bets. Even though two-thirds of subprime mortgages issued in the last five years originated with non-banks that have little or no capital requirements. Even though 80 percent of all lending today is from unregulated banks that hold almost no capital assets.

Paulson says he doesn’t blame the current regulatory structure for current market turmoil. Well, Hank, if it’s not the current Wild-West take-any-risk with other people’s money non-regulatory structure we have now, how do you explain the housing bubble and the credit meltdown and the taxpayer bailout of Wall Street? How exactly are your proposed fixes going to prevent another crisis?

Hank Paulson’s discussion paper – it’s not even meant to be enacted under the Bush Administration – is not broad, it’s not an overhaul, and heaven forbid, if we’re facing another Great Depression, it will do absolutely zilch to head it off.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/03/hank-paulsons-punt.html

[PassingFair]

11. He would be my first choice.

Therefore, the only cabinet he will come
close to will be the spice cabinet in his
kitchen.

Although he worked for the Clinton's, Reich
had his OWN voice. He still does.

[Alter Ego]

15. Is he the tiny one?

Or is that Rubin I'm thinking of?

[Jennicut]

17. He is the little guy. Rubin was the the tall guy.

[LiberalFighter]

16. The hell with Reich. He suggested that autoworkers should make concessions recently.

The dumbass apparently hasn't been keeping pace when the negotiations were completed. The autoworkers made enough concessions including any new hires will hire in at about 50%.

[Mass]

21. I suggest you read the full piece. not the half line a pundit extracted from it on Sunday.

(will post the link when I have it, but this is typical media crap and you fell for it).

I'd love Reich. At least, he is not a deregulator.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/

[Jennicut]

23. Yup. And he left before the Glass-Steagal act was signed into law.

[LiberalFighter]

24. It wasn't what I read but what I heard with my own ears Sunday morning show.

[Mass]

29. My point. You trusted the pundits rather than reading the piece by yourself.

Generally a big mistake.

[LiberalFighter]

38. I didn't hear it from the pundits!!!!! I heard it directly from Reich's lips!!!

[LiberalFighter]

40. What about from Robert Reich's own blog?

In exchange for government aid, the Big Three's creditors, shareholders, and executives should be required to accept losses as large as they'd endure under chapter 11, and the UAW should agree to some across-the-board wage and benefit cuts. The resulting savings, combined with the bailout, should be enough to allow the Big Three to shift production to more fuel efficient cars while keeping almost all its current workforce employed. Ideally, major parts suppliers would adhere to the same conditions.

Source here

[Skwmom]

27. So is autoworkers making concessions a bad idea?

This is such a mess I think we're all going to have to make concessions. Then when the auto industry rebounds they can renegotiate (and that can be part of the criteria for making concessions now).

Of course, the corporate heads should be making MAJOR concessions starting with a HUGE CUT in salary and perks. I still think there are some decent, qualified people who would be willing to run those companies in order to turn this country around and do it without expecting huge compensation.

[LiberalFighter]

41. Do you have any idea what concessions were made in the last contract?

[MessiahRp]

44. I read in this one that the main concession was bringing the average salary down

from $69 to $62 an hour which is just slightly more than Toyota pays their workers ($59) although I bet the difference is made up in benefits. http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081119/fact_check_autos_labor_costs.html?.v=1

Look, I am certain I'll get heat for this and I am sure what Autoworkers do is ridiculously hard work but if that figure as reported is true, $62 an hour at a 40 hour work week is $128k. That's pretty damn good salary and most Americans aren't nearly that lucky to make that much.

Obviously I suspect the reported amount is weighed by the longer tenured or higher paid workers making more but still that's one hell of an average salary.

I don't want the union broken and I think a mass majority of this mess has been made by the Big Three's refusal to stop mass producing oversized SUVs and Trucks and their refusal to go Green and offer reasonably priced options.

But there is something to be said about lowering salaries as a way to maintain a job in the long term. It's unfortunate but someone making $128k shouldn't be hurting bad enough as to not be willing to take a cut to save their job.

The UAW should tie their paycuts in with direction of the company to force change at the top.

Rp

[LiberalFighter]

45. They do not make anywheres near $69 or $62 an hour.

That includes their benefits whether they actually use any or all of their benefits.

The only autoworkers that made anywhere over $100k were those that worked all available overtime or had both spouses working.

As for longer termed workers making more that is baloney. Overall all employees made the same hourly rate. Skilled trades might make a little more but not by much. Employees that were "Pay for Knowledge" might make about 50 cents an hour more than those at Level I. Team Coordinators made about 50 cents more an hour than the top Level. There were only 3 levels.

There was no distinction between on the line workers, facility support, reliability, material or other workers. It was all the same. Some departments required the workers to work longer hours.

The contract in 2007 slashed wages for new hires by 50%. They will be paid $14 or less an hour or $29,120 if they work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks. New hires will not be covered under traditional retiree health care and defined benefit pension plans. Also, the gap in labor costs that had previously existed between domestic and foreign owned operations will mostly be or completely eliminated by the end of 2010.

Efficiency cannot be blamed for problems at the big 3 companies. Union-represented workers are more efficient than those at non-union auto plants.

[MessiahRp]

47. So there are no incremental pay raises at all?

Say you've been there a year... no yearly pay bump? Ever? What is the incentive of taking a job where you are stuck in level of pay and can never advance that in any possible way? It's pretty difficult to believe that there is never a single pay increase for any of the workers.

I knew about the new hires having their pay slashed (although $29,120 a year for some people that aren't exactly college educated and getting a ton of offers is not all that bad... consider the fast food or retail alternative) and I figured there was some strange accounting going on to tip the balance of that number.

I support the Union and think they are mostly beneficial to workers but is there an independent study that shows the efficiency of UAW workers versus their Non-Union autoworker counterparts? Obviously I want to see something that is put out by neither side.. labor nor management to see how that works.

I also want to throw in, even if it's mostly unrelated to this conversation we're having... that it's difficult to support the Big Three just based on the fact that there are some UAW workers there. They have shipped so many of those jobs to Mexico and elsewhere that even if you buy one of their cars you're not really benefitting UAW workers as much as you are foreign workers. Another interesting statistic to know would be to find out how much of every car sale ends up benefitting American workers at the Big Three versus other auto manufacturers with American plants.

Rp

[LiberalFighter]

49. There is annual pay raise but nothing to bark about. And there is COLA

but COLA has changed since they took out some basics that determine the changes.

It was apparently a Harbour Report that determined UAW workers are more efficient than the non-union auto workers.

[Skwmom]

26. From what I heard, he sounds like a great pick.

He seems like a smart guy.

[superduperfarleft]

42. Too short. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

43. I would prefer an economist for the job, myself. (Reich isn't)

[Alexander]

46. Yes, Reich would be a good choice.

[Two Sheds]

48. Reich is a former Clintonista I'd like to see in the Cabinet

nm

[Clear Blue Sky]

50. Sure. Why not bring back the entire Clinton cabinet?

[tigereye]

51. Reich is wonderful, I would love to see him have a role in this admin