Is Obama Fixing to Own Some Banks?

The other day, I suggested that Obama’s principles of government ownership sounded like they were designed for more than just GM.

There’s evidence to support that suggestion in this reasonably good David Sanger article on the GM bankruptcy.

In interviews in recent days, Mr. Obama’s economic team said it anticipated [political pressues regarding business decisions related to companies the government owns], and had moved to cut them off early.

It started right around the time of the bank stress tests,” said Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, in an interview on Monday. During one of the president’s daily economic briefings, Mr. Emanuel added, “he said that taking over companies like this is a big deal, and that no president has ever faced anything like this before. And he said he wanted to see some rules of the road about how the government should act” when it suddenly becomes the biggest shareholder in the market.

Mr. Obama clearly wanted protection: a set of principles he could hand to angry members of Congress, campaign contributors or executives to explain why he would not call Fritz Henderson, G.M.’s chief executive, to discuss whether an engine should be made in Saginaw or Shanghai.

The result was an interagency task force informally called “The Government as Shareholder,” headed by Diana Farrell, the deputy director of the National Economic Council and formerly the head of the McKinsey Global Institute, the research arm of McKinsey & Company.

It was Ms. Farrell’s report, delivered to the Oval Office fewer than 10 days ago, that laid out the principles that Mr. Obama described on Monday.

The White House insists the principles will apply equally to the government’s investment in the American International Group, the fallen insurer, or in Citigroup and other banks that the government has rescued. [my emphasis]

Sanger doesn’t seem to get the implication of Rahm’s comment. Rahm tells us these principles–principles the government will use with companies it owns–came up not during auto task force discussions, but during the bank stress tests.  That means the conversation about socialism how big a deal it is for the government to own companies came up in the context of owning banks, not owning car companies.

Sure, we already own an insurance company and Freddie and Fannie. Sure, maybe the reference to Citi is a very pointed reference. 

But it sure seems like these principles suggest we’re going to be owning a bank in the near future, to go along with GM and AIG.  Looks like we’re all going to get a chance to be banksters soon!!

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

70 Responses to Is Obama Fixing to Own Some Banks?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel One funny thing abt stories parroting WH line that "individual" 215 orders are for car rentals, hotels, is that's what would remain w/sunset
46mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Golly, who could have expected another systemic problem with the FBI Crime Lab? https://t.co/67DC9e9PS4
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @TerryOlson Yes, very seriously.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @tomcollinsaz Excellent call.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Have to say, the Phoenix Police Department has done a remarkable job today and tonight at the #PHxMosque site.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Nick_Hentoff Yep, exactly.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Definitely the food highlight of our trip. Terrific dinner tonight @BandarSanDiego
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Nick_Hentoff Jeebus, I've not only never heard of that atty, I don't think I've heard of anybody in his firm either. Had it about right tho
8hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @normative Sorry if you interpret me treating McConnell as the adversary as a dis. Stay on target. @NathanielDWhite
9hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @NathanielDWhite I certainly could do a longer response but I have higher priorities over next 2 days. @normative
9hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @NathanielDWhite The Medium one?Didn't write it, but short version is it only makes sense if ACLU & corporations have no lawyers @normative
9hreplyretweetfavorite