TPMDC
« GOP House Candidate: "Rush Limbaugh Is Meaningless To Me" | Home | Rep. Sherman Squares Off With Pro-Wall Street CNBC Host »

Fed Fight: Viewing the AIG Fallout From Dodd's End

As frustration with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) reaches a fever pitch, both on the Hill and among his home-state voters, it's worth taking a step back and asking why some fellow Democrats left him to flail this week while they scrambled for cover from AIG anger.

Here's one potential answer, gleaned from months of watching the still-evolving debate over broader financial regulatory reform: depleting Dodd's political capital positions the Federal Reserve for a major increase in power by next year -- handing a plum position to Larry Summers, who has long been tipped as the next Fed chairman. As the WSJ put it:

Mr. Summers is widely seen as having ambitions beyond his current job. He originally wanted to be Treasury secretary, several Democrats say. He has long been described as a possible chairman of the Federal Reserve -- a job that could come open as soon as 2010, if Mr. Obama chose not to reappoint Ben Bernanke when his term runs out.

But why would kneecapping Dodd help those in D.C. who want regulatory power consolidated at the Fed?

Because as Congress debates where to situate a new "systemic risk regulator" (that's Capitol-speak for "long-term protector of the financial system"), Dodd is openly questioning whether the Fed should have the job.

As Dodd explained yesterday during a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee, which he chairs:

Certainly, there is a case to be made for a so-called "systemic risk regulator" within [the existing] framework.

Whether or not those vast powers will reside at the Fed remains an open question. The Fed's primary focus is on the conduct of monetary policy and its ever-ballooning portfolio and its expanding balance sheet which could reach $4 trillion. And that is to say nothing of its increasing number of responsibilities, and the obvious mistakes the Fed made in the run-up to the current crisis.

Chief among the Fed's mistakes, in the eyes of its critics, was its mishandling of the original government takeover of AIG. Dodd went on to say yesterday, as he has on several recent occasions, that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is a better choice to become the "systemic risk regulator" because it has a more solid track record on consumer protection.

Who disagrees with Dodd? House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), for one. He told the Wonk Room this week that the New York Fed, the longtime stomping grounds of Summers protege and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is in the best position to become the "systemic risk regulator" that will heal the nation's current economic wounds.

For a taste of the New York Fed's record on consumer protection, just check out their impressive list of "Class B" directors -- the ones specifically tasked with protecting the public.

It's not clear whether Geithner and Summers agree that the Fed should become "America's regulator-in-chief," as the Economist puts it today.

But given Geithner's history at the central bank, and Summers' apparent vying for the chairmanship, it's reasonable to suspect that they'd much prefer the Fed to the FDIC, where chief Sheila Bair has openly clashed with the new Treasury Secretary over remedies for the financial meltdown. And if you were looking to sideline the FDIC's main champion in the regulatory reform debate, what better way to do so than to peg him as the No. 1 defender of AIG bonuses?

None of this is to say that Dodd is blameless; after all, he agreed to the Treasury Department's request to modify his executive pay limits. Still, it's one answer to the curious question of why one politically vulnerable senator had to play the villain this week.


25 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Dodd might have lots of issues, but much of the recent criticism is deeply unfair and his critics are really blowing up Dodd's role when it is Geithner and Summers who were lobbying against retroactive restrictions. From Campaign Diaries:

The provision that Dodd helped dilute was his own amendment. Sure, he did end up bowing to Treasury’s anti-retroactivity stance instead of fighting it, but it is unfair to make him into the main culprit since he was the one to propose retroactivity in the first place... Without him, there would not have been any retroactivity to strike out of the bill.

That Democrats are throwing under the bus someone who is up for re-election in 2010 is really confusing to me.

user-pic

not confussing to me when you realize how corrupt they are.

user-pic

Sorry that Dodd is taking the heat for this.

user-pic

It's clearly too much to expect that Geithner & Summers will "take one for the team" and admit THEIR authorship of the entire AIG bonus fiasco.

But why won't Obama grow a pair and throw THIS pair [G & S] under the bus for the good of both the country and his administration?

user-pic

I think it's safe to say Bush and Paulson share most of the blame re: the bonuses. I think Geithner and Summers could've done more to get out ahead of this though.

user-pic

Great reporting Elana! I would have had no idea about this level of play.

user-pic

I'm on again, off again with Dodd, but I would take him any day of the week for the Fed over Summers. That sends shivers down my spine. I wouldn't trust Summers any further than I could throw him.

user-pic

Great reporting, Elana. You need to keep chasing this down, and also get Josh on the scent of this on the front page comments by him.

This is pretty clearly Summers style. He's throwing people under the bus left and right to protect and expand his position. I think we all know that if the heat get hotter, Timmy goes under the bus while Summers deflects blame.

The notion of Summers as Fed Chair is mind numbingly frightening. As lots of people have written during this crisis, The Fed is largely a government unto itself at this point. What we've seen is them take actions that look to be far beyond their charter, but no one seems to have the ability to step in to stop or even review clearly what they're up to.

Regardless of what we think of Bernanke's job performce, I think we'll all admit that he isn't remotely the politcal and financial animal the Summers is. Give him the keys to The Fed directly and we're beyond fucked.

On a side note, someone needs to start banging the drums on candidates to replace Timmy if he's forced to walk the plank. We badly need to avoid another Summers/Rubin Puppet in the role.

Robert Reich isn't a Summers/Rubin Puppet. He's run a Department in the Cabinet. He's not a thrall to Wall Street and the Banks. It would be a rather strong voice of sanity opposite Summers at this point.

I doubt Robert would want to work "under" Summers as Timmy clearly is. But that's the point - Obama (and we) need someone who isn't under Summers and can crack through that ceiling to get Obama's ear. We don't have six months or a year to keep jerking around on this stuff until Obama realizes that the path Summers is leading him down is a fatally flawed one.

John

John

user-pic

My, my, my. I think a better narrative would look to motive. After all, the groups that the feds are proposing have new regulation have a better motive to manipulate things.

Are you an English lit major, Elana?

user-pic

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this article is saying. A pack of Dems decided to take down Dodd so that Summers could be the next Fed Chairman?

Someone please dumb down this article for me because it sounds like a real stretch and a whole lot of guessing.

My guess for why Dodd was "thrown under the bus"? Uhm, they are politicians - elections are coming up - republicans are out for blood - Americans are angry and looking for someone to blame - who wants to be that person? Maybe those Dems are cowards plain and simple. Dems aren't exactly known for their loyalty.

user-pic

According to the article, Dodd is being thrown under the bus so that the new risk regulator will not be at the FDIC as he prefers, but the FED as preferred by the Summers gang.

Incidentally, Summers et al, are not politicians and not facing reelection in two years while Dodd is. So for them, it may not be simply cowardice.

user-pic

The article asked why some Dems let him flail so I focused mainly on them. So, is Chris Dodd that powerful that he can influence who the next Fed Chairman will be?

Serious question.

user-pic

Exactly. For Summers, it's not politics. It's just business. Being Fed Chair is the ultimate egofuck for someone like him, and also puts him right at the center of Financial Power where we are seeing that The Fed can do almost anything it wants.

The White House (read Rahm, Summers and possible Axelrod) have been throwing Dems under the bus since the transition and right on through the Stimulus. The let Nancy be the front person to take GOP heat, even if it made Dems in Congress look bad. It's really starting to become a patern, and one would wish that Obama would smack around his senior most advisors to tell them to knock it off, and knocks heads below them to knocks it off as well.

John

user-pic

Too big to fail = too big to exist,
implies Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairwoman Sheila Bair: ==================================================WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Before lawmakers on Capitol Hill begin contemplating the creation of a broad systemic regulator, legislators should consider limiting the size and complexity of financial institutions as a means of reducing risk, a key regulator said Thursday. "Congress should examine a more fundamental question of whether there should be limitations on the size and complexity of institutions whose failure would be systematically significant," said Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairwoman Sheila Bair at a Senate Banking Committee hearing on modernizing bank supervision.


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/banks-shouldnt-too-big-fdic/story.aspx?guid=%7B138B66A5-1EC8-416D-BA07-A104639862E6%7D&dist=msr_1

user-pic

Exactly why she should have Timmeh's job.

user-pic

Dodd has two problems that has helped point him as the fall guy that has nothing to do with Summers.
1. $104k donations from AIG
2. A sweet mortgage deal which some suspect was a perk.

I'm not against Dodd, and according to Huffington Post the GOP have put out talking points against Dodd to make him the fall guy. I'm just saying Dodd came into this situation with some previous questions about his ties to Wall Street.

user-pic

Dodd created this problem himself by lying to the press in the first place. Now he is making the situation worse by trying to blame other people for a problem he created.

user-pic

Wasn't Dodd just being a good soldier and trying to cover for the Administration?

user-pic

On purpose or not, I think it's also more likely that Dodd is a convenient fall guy exactly because of his weak political position in CT. In other words, I'm wondering if he has already decided not to run again next year, and either he himself or others figures better him getting the blame than someone who has a future in politics after next year. He's been in the Senate for 30 years now, been committee chair, and there's really no where to go from where he is now, so wouldn't suprise me if he's decided to get out (and left himself open to fall guy status because of it).

user-pic

Dodd will be 66 while running for re-election in 2010 for a term that will expire in 2016 at the age of 72. If he had his dream, he'd be two years into being President in 2010 and then being the lame duck President in 2016.

Serving for 30 years really isn't relevant since he was elected at the age of 36. He's only 6 years older than Schumer, who wasn't elected to the Senate until 1998.

As much as Dodd may worry about the numbers right now for the 2010 election, it's still November 2010 when people vote - more than a year and a half from now. This is a state where he won roughly 65% of the vote in three out of his last four re-elections, and his "bad" re-election was a 58.81% to 38.12% win in 1992: 20 points.

60.59% Obama
38.22% McCain

Do we really think a Repub is going to take down Dodd in 2010 is the ecomony is *improved* by then?

If the economy is still in the crapper, which is entirely possible, then Dodd and the rest of Congress is at risk. Perhaps if Rell was running against him, but she's running for re-election in 2010.

John

user-pic

If this is true then it's a reason why Summers should be kept as far away from any position of public power as possible - including the one he now holds. He's playing games for his own petty advancement.

The way they walked Dodd into a buzzsaw, did a lot of damage to him politically and THEN Geithner came out with the statement that Treasury wanted some of the changes is grossly incompetent.

Summers and Geithner are protecting the order on Wall St. They are too worried about the bunch of crooks there and no worried enough about carrying out the promises their boss has made.

Again, Obama appointed them and other center-righties, thinking they are the best people to carry out a center-left agenda. Of course this happens. It's ludicrous all around.

user-pic

It's absurd that AIG went out and awarded millions in bonus money. It's more absurd for the government to come in after the fact and tax employees at ninety percent for taking the bonuses.

The government has determined AIG is too big to fail. So, it should have, in exchange for the money, demanded that AIG not award bonuses. Once the cash is out there, though, it's ridiculous for the government to come in and take it. Ridiculous.

Because the Minnesota Twins are getting public money for a ballpark, should their employees give back their salaries of millions and millions? I mean, we've already decided to give the Twins the cash, but maybe, now that the state is in financial straits, we should just tax the hell out of the athletes' salaries. That would feel a lot better. Or, maybe along with the salaries, we should publish the addresses and phone numbers of the players so the public could, you know, express their outrage at their salaries to their faces.

Please. This posturing is ridiculous. The answer to the problem was at the beginning of the bailout period -- when we should have offered the company the money in exchange for some restrictions. Instead, it was, "Take the cash, AIG, and get your company solvent." To come in months later with new restrictions is disgusting.

It makes me hope that Barney Frank never sees the chair of any government committee ever again.

user-pic

Is it just me, or are Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner really starting to stink up the place?

user-pic

Nope - it's not just you. And, Tosh's comments about the negative effects of Summers are right on. The downsides of having him around seem to outweigh possible upsides. Really do not want him as head of the Fed, much less a Fed with expanded powers. Reich seems a good choice for Fed, as would Stiglitz. Am an early and continuing supporter of Obama, but the one area of disappointment with him is in his choice of people to lead the financial sector recovery. Most unfortunate.

user-pic

The place is really starting to stink and the ship is starting to sink. Boy, I thought that the Bush guys were bad -- these guys are doing no better. What is going on? Truly, what is Obama thinking? He's got his happy face on to try to get us not to think about this doom but is he so bought off that he can't help himself from caving to these corporate interests? Why are they paying so much for all this bad debt? Shouldn't Goldman and Bank of America and all these foreign banks get paid less for taking out this crummy insurance on their debt? I just don't get it.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Elana
Schor

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Capital Wire

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address