A (too) well-regulated Barack Obama

This little gem appeared recently, courtesy of Yahoo News:

QUOTE:

Also endorsing Obama were three former Securities and Exchange Commission chairmen - William Donaldson, David Ruder, and Arthur Levitt Jr., who was appointed by former President Clinton. The campaign released a joint statement by the former SEC chiefs, as well as former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, that praised Obama's "positive leadership and judgment" on economic issues.

"We are aware of the reasoned approach Mr. Obama has taken in analyzing the current financial crisis and the need for balanced regulatory reform," the statement said. "We believe that such a constructive approach can be extended broadly in the economic area as well as elsewhere."

:UNQUOTE [source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080514/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp ]

My Initial Impression:

I love it when members of the Old Guard's status quo posse see fit to issue a "joint statement." Well, actually, I don't love it. And neither will you, especially if you happen to embrace Barack Obama who embodies (as expressed in his own words), "Change you can believe in." By the way, that particular slogan is a masterpiece of thematic integration: Blending the theme of "change," which implies movement away from "business as usual" (though that makes some people uneasy), with the theme of "belief," which implies movement toward campaign themes affiliated with belief, such as faith and values.

Why you won't love it

All anyone ever has to do is actually read what the Old Guard is saying, and take a moment to let it sink in. The most revealing phrase (above) is, "balanced regulatory reform" - and here I'll emphasize the word balanced. The Old Guard is afraid that Obama might be tempted to take his crusade for "reform" too far, hence their calculated use of the word balanced, as well as the two words that precede it: need for.

I will go one step further: This so-called "endorsement" is in effect a pre-emptive strike. These former regulators are trying to regulate Obama. They hope to rein in any fleeting impulse which might possess him to (heaven forbid) make a real difference by crusading for boat-rocking reform. Reform that isn't balanced. Reform that, in fact, is extremely imbalanced to the point of leveling the playing field.

I make due note here that these regulators are not calling for aggressive enforcement action against entities which violate financial regulations. We need to ask them: What good is it to push forward with "regulatory reform" (which might end up only looking good on paper) unless one also starts suing some bastards?

To seduce Obama, they peppered their statement with complimentary words:

• "positive leadership and judgment"
• "reasoned approach"
• "analyzing the current financial crisis" [Responsible, balanced leaders are always "analyzing" things, so as not to risk doing anything hasty.]

These four former regulators know that Hillary Clinton won't upset the apple cart by needlessly reforming our business culture, and they also know she won't get the nomination. As for McCain? They're not worried about him messing around with the status quo, since he'll be busy with a variety of foreign adventures - current as well as new ones he's dreaming of.

The two who happen to be Republicans, among this bipartisan group of four, aren't worried about endorsing a Democrat. That's all part of the game called "hedging one's bets." If McCain wins, they'll breathe a sigh of relief because they really favor the marketplace dictating the pace and nature of regulatory reform. If Obama wins, they'll be the first to congratulate him, while "reminding" him of the importance of the "need for balanced regulatory reform." Not to mention, the need for further analysis (can't get enough of that): "President Obama, why don't you convene a bipartisan, blue ribbon commission to further study this issue and provide you with a list of options?"

Frankly, I foresee an Obama presidency wallowing in such commissions.

More about these four regulators

• William Donaldson: 77 years old, Republican, Dubya appointee to head SEC, former Chairman and CEO of the New York Stock Exchange (definitely a voice calling for radical reform of the status quo - not!).

• Arthur Levitt Jr: 77 years old, Democrat, currently employed by Carlyle Group (in a gesture of bipartisan outreach, I'm sure). QUOTE: Widely hailed as a champion of the individual investor, he has been criticized for not pushing for tougher accounting rules: UNQUOTE [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Levitt ]

• David Ruder: 79 years old, Republican, served as SEC chair upon appointment by Ronald Reagan from 1987-1989, currently a law professor who might best be described (favorably) as a non-politician and (favorably or not, depending on your degree of pragmatism) as an academic or technocrat.

• Paul Volcker: 81 years old, Democrat (though served in the Nixon administration), founding member of the Trilateral Commission, instrumental in removing US from the gold standard.

Further reflections on Professor Ruder

The timing of Mr. Ruder's appointment to head the SEC was fascinating. His predecessor John Shad, appointed by Ronald Reagan, had served for six years until resigning to become ambassador to the Netherlands. Four months later, with David Ruder at the helm, came the stock market crash of 1987. So there we have it: John Shad works to implement Ronald Reagan's deregulatory philosophy and then quits to go east (to the Netherlands) just before the market goes south.

I don't know if David Ruder was set up as some clueless academic to be a fall guy. Kind of smells like it, though.

This material, from the New York Times back in August of 1987, re-emphasizes my concerns about the kind of people who should be appointed to positions of public trust. Academic credentials alone are not enough; I'm looking for creative visionaries with a personal sense of mission to radically reshape regulatory structure. As your next president, I will appoint such visionaries.

QUOTE:

''While Mr. Ruder may well have respected academic credentials, he is simply not the right person for the S.E.C.,'' said Senator Terry Sanford, Democrat from North Carolina, on the floor of the chamber yesterday. ''Certainly, at a time when the S.E.C. desperately needs a strong enforcer, the White House has instead put forward a man whose commitment to enforcement can only be called wanting.''

Since Mr. Ruder's confirmation hearings last month, his nomination had been opposed by a number of senators concerned about not only his commitment to enforcement but what they viewed as his lack of commitment to slowing the pace of hostile takeovers....

At his confirmation hearings, Mr. Ruder repeatedly sided with the S.E.C.'s position of opposing substantial new legislative restrictions on either raiders or managements in takeover battles...

:UNQUOTE [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFD91331F934A3575BC0A961948260 ]

As for John McCain's endorsements:

I couldn't resist peeking at John McCain's website, having had quite enough of Barack Obama's backers for one day. McCain's list of endorsements is, as should be expected, lengthy and includes a fair share of current and former national government leaders in the economics sphere of activity. Not as impressive - at least to me - are the names he lists who are connected to the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

However, there are some oddities in his list [see : http://www.johnmccain.com/supporters/ ]

• 21 current US senators support McCain [That means less than half of the 49 GOP senators support Mac III.]

• 48 current US representatives [That means less than one-quarter of the 199 GOP Reps support Mac III.]

• 7 business leaders [That's it? We have a lot more than seven business leaders in this country.]

• Over 100 retired Admirals and Generals [Ah, now we're talking about the kind of people McCain feels are important.]

Where McCain really needs to pick up the pace:

On his website, McCain lists only two names under the category of "Entertainer/Athletes" who are McCain Supporters: Curt Schilling and Sylvester Stallone.

I am absolutely in shock that McCain can't do better than two players in this critical category. Though, I must admit, he's got two more than I've got.

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"Endorsements from the prominents are risky business. I'm kind of glad I don't have any" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.