Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (46392)	10/14/2010 12:59:22 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

The Rats Begin Leaving Obama’s Sinking Ship by Paul A. Rahe Ten months back, at the very end of September, I posted online a brief piece entitled Obama’s Wrecking Crew, in which I drew attention to a column in The New York Post in which Charles Gasparino reported two items of interest. First, that the titans of Wall Street – men such as Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, BlackRock’s Larry Fink, Greg Fleming (once at Merrill Lynch), JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon, and Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein – were beginning, in private, to express grave misgivings concerning the Obama administration’s stewardship of the economy. And, second, that these insiders were also telling him that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers were complaining to them that they had almost no say in policy decisions. “Obama,” these two were said to have lamented, “is acting as if he has a blank check to do what he wants, while ignoring the longterm costs of his policies.” In that post, I predicted that Geithner, a young man whose time had come, would suffer, at least for a while, in silence, and I suggested that self-respect would cause Summers to bolt. “Within the world of economics,” I wrote, “his is a name to be conjured with; and, unlike Paul Krugman, he has not in public prostituted himself for partisan advantage. It must be excruciating to watch while Obama’s wrecking crew destroys the foundations for American prosperity.” As I predicted, Geithner is still there and is still willing to parrot the administration line regarding matters such as marginal tax rates. But Summers has not yet bolted – perhaps because he has nowhere to go. He rose to become Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, and he failed ignominiously as President of Harvard. Where, he has no doubt asked himself, do I go from here? However this may be, my general point was correct – as has become evident in the last few weeks. Not to put a fine point on it, the rats have begun leaving Obama’s ship. The first to announce his departure was our current President’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, who had been a budget hawk when – as head of the Congressional Budget Office in 2007 and 2008 – he scored the various budget proposals submitted by President George W. Bush. Last Thursday, Christina Romer , Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, announced that she would soon follow Orszag’s example. Neither Orszag nor Romer is a fool. They were party to a con, and they surely knew it. They presumed that the economy would bounce back as it usually does after a recession, and they went along with Rahm Emanuel’s strategy of exploiting the crisis lest it “go to waste.” In the process, they did what they were told and said what they had to. They endorsed and defended policies that, as economists, they knew were unsustainable; and they have left us holding the bag. The recovery has stalled; unemployment is at least 35% higher than Romer predicted it would be at this stage; and the deficits stemming from the so-called “stimulus bill” that these two piously praised as necessary for the recovery now threaten its continuance. I doubt that Barack Obama cares one whit. His aim was the transformation of a country that he sincerely hates, and Orszag and Romer have loyally served his purpose – as Geithner and Summers still do. There will, I suspect, be a political reckoning for all of this profligacy, and its first harbinger will present itself on the first Tuesday in November. You can fool Americans for a time – but not for long. biggovernment.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (46392)	10/14/2010 2:43:39 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 71588

Clinton Suggests Conditions on Pakistan Flood Relief WSJ EUROPE NEWS OCTOBER 14, 2010, 2:04 P.M. ET By JOHN W. MILLER online.wsj.com BRUSSELS — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested European Union leaders should follow the U.S. and withhold further flood-relief funding from Pakistan until Islamabad shows it is doing more to fight corruption and collect tax revenue from its wealthiest citizens. After meeting with Catherine Ashton, the EU's high representative, Mrs. Clinton praised recent EU aid efforts but added, "the international community can only do so much." It is unacceptable, she said, "for those with means in Pakistan not to be doing their fair share to help their own people." Mrs. Clinton's comments came a day before a conference of EU ministers in Brussels to address Pakistan's flood-relief needs. The World Bank on Thurday tagged the estimated damage from the July floods at $9.7 billion. The torrential rains, which covered a fifth of the country and killed 2,000 people, knocked down bridges, destroyed homes and submerged farmland. Pakistan has received $1.5 billion in relief so far. At this point, the EU has contributed around $500 million while the U.S. has given roughly $400 million. Additionally, the EU has waived duties for up to three years on 75 categories of imports, mainly textiles and clothing. The move has prompted criticism from European textile companies already under pressure from Chinese imports. Mrs. Clinton's statements reflected a tougher stance on Pakistan's internal economic policies. "Rhetoric in Washington on Pakistan has picked up across the board in the last few months," said Dhruva Jaishanker of the German Marshall Fund in Washington. The U.S. position has shifted from emphasizing democratic government "to being more about accountability." The U.S. has also said Pakistan isn't doing enough to battle militants along the Afghan border. Pakistan is engaged in an offensive against some groups, but has largely avoided fighters from the Afghan Taliban, al Qaeda and other groups that stage attacks on North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan. Mrs. Ashton's answer to Mrs. Clinton exposed a small difference in approach. Instead of bluntly stating conditions that Pakistan should fulfill, she said, "we look forward to learn more about Pakistan's strategy for a longer-term comprehensive approach to recovery." On Friday, Mrs. Ashton will head a gathering of EU foreign ministers and Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi. He and other government officials have emphasized that their priority is rebuilding. "If you want to help us fight extremism and terrorism one way of doing that is making Pakistan economically stable," he said at the European Parliament on Thursday morning. Aid groups said they agreed with the U.S. stance in principle but insisted there should be no conditions. "People struggling from the floods shouldn't have to pay because of issues with the government," said Rebecca Barber, who works for Oxfam in Islamabad. Oxfam on Thursday also criticized the West for not forgiving some of Pakistan's $55 billion international debt, which is costing Pakistan $2.9 billion in interest this year . Write to John W. Miller at john.miller@dowjones.com