Labor Economist to Fill Key Post

Source: WSJ

President Barack Obama on Monday plans to nominate Princeton University's Alan Krueger to be chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, a White House official said.

If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Krueger, a labor economist, is likely to provide a voice inside the administration for more-aggressive government action to bring down unemployment and, particularly, to address long-term joblessness.

Mr. Krueger, 50 years old, returned to Princeton a year ago after serving as assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy during the first two years of the Obama administration—which means he has recently cleared the sometimes treacherous Senate confirmation process.

He would succeed Austan Goolsbee, who left earlier this month to reclaim his teaching post at the University of Chicago.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903352704576536811283720734.html?wpisrc=nl_wonk

---

Curious how long until his attempts to actually get something through the House get him thrown under the bus here.

From what I looked up, the job of White House Council of Economic Advisers Administrator was made no longer Senate confirmable earlier this year, part of an effort to streamline appointments by reducing the number which had to go through the Senate. So, assuming that WHCEA chairman and WHCEA Administrator are the same thing, then this guy should be able to be appointed without the Senate coming into the equation.

That is, once somebody is on the CEA then POTUS can appoint him head of it, but the Senate still gatekeeps the council itself.

For example, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/krueger_to_replace_goolsbee_in031852.php

Then again, Wraith wasn't sure if the Chair and the Administrator were one and the same.

And then there is that pesky constitutional issue I mentioned in Reply 48.

If he were already a member, Obama could appoint him as chair without a confirmation. But he's not.

post to me, namely that he needs to be confirmed only because he is not already a member of the CEA.

So, no, I don't have one. I do remember the same thing that Wraith seems to, that the CEA appointment structure was streamlined earlier this year.

at hand when someone asks me to support something I've posted. However, if someone asks, I get one.

This is what you said: " Right, {confirmation}for his membership on the CEAIf he were already a member, Obama could appoint him as chair without a confirmation. But he's not."


)Edited to quote Recursion's Reply 51 in its entirety.)

Members are now exempt from confirmation, but the chairman is not.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s679/show

Also, 679? Really? Has the Senate done that much this Congress?

The CEA is not a Constitutionally defined body; I'm not sure why you're bringing COTUS up in this context. The Senate decides which positions require confirmation and which do not.

And that has nothing to do with whether the Consteitution mentions the CEA or not.

"...and he {the POTUS} shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by Law..."

Now, that absolutely does cover the CEA. However, on checking the exact wording, I also find this:


"....but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

So, we are both right and both wrong. I am right that the Constitution required Senate confirmation of CEA appointments, but I am wrong that a law cannot change that.

You are right that the Constitution need not be amended, but you are wrong that the Constitution is not relevant to this issue because it does not include the CEA.

Edit for quotation marks and italics.

Congress can define inferior offices to those Constitutionally mandated, and the Senate can then define which of those positions it chooses to subject to confirmation.

the Constitution was not understandable since the Constitution did not mention the CEA?

My, that was were indeed unclear. Sounded like you had no idea that the Constitution was relevant in any way at all.

I can't recall ever seeing a link in any of your posts.

But, since you said you did look this up before posting, why not give a link?

Also who had the power--or claimed to have the power--to make a position "no longer Senate confirmable?" Senate confirmation of Presidential nominees is a Constitutional requirement.

Either the Constitution never required confirmation, in which case Presidents were arses to request confirmation that was not required, or a Constitutional amendment would be necessary to alter the status quo.

Senate confirmation of Presidential nominees is a Constitutional requirement.

Yes, and the Senate defines which nominees are subject to confirmation and which are not. It is not the case that all executive branch political appointees are subject to confirmation, and never has been.

And yes, originally ALL officers of the Executive Branch WERE subject to confirmation. However, the Constitution also empowered Congress (not only the Senate) to enact one or more laws carving out exceptions for inferior officers, and only inferior officers.

"...and he {the POTUS} shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by Law, but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

I did not misunderstand anything, but, not having committed the Constitution to memory, I had forgotting about the proviso. (That's why it's good to check, rather than to keep pulling things out of one's ear.)

1. Krueger doesn't turn out to have been paid millions by Wall Street. A quick search seems to show that he's clean.
2. This is the start of a WH trend away from Wall Street über alles
3. Obama actually supports this appointment, it's not just a pre-election bone to FDR Democrats that he intends to let dangle and die in confirmation hearings.

Geithner has never in his life worked for Wall Street and has only briefly worked in the private sector, and that was for a non-profit (admittedly it was the CFR). That hasn't kept him from being tarred with the same brush, I assume for recognizing the world exists as it currently exists.

E.g., who can forget his diving catch to save the banker bonuses with taxpayer cash: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704130904574644623457242200.html

that the weakest banks raise adequate capital in the private market (something they are loathe to do).

Bank of America had to raise $33 billion while their stock was $3. They hate that.

for 600 trillion more potentially.


I say "only" for effect. They should have gotten what most failed businesses get - kicked to the curb.

Sounds good to me.

When you state "we" have made a $12 billion profit, you surely aren't including AIG or all the foreign banks who have yet to repay one red dime.

We've already made money on the 12% of preferred shares we sold.

Surely $712 billion hasn't poured back in to the government. Or has it?

A whole lot of TARP ended up being guarantees of debt, which have mostly now been handed off.

Okay - that's how the whole thing was handled, including payments to foreign banks like Phil Gramm's employer.

We have, however, on the whole made money off the whole thing (those guarantees come at the cost of a premium from the investment banks, which went right back to the Treasury and Fed depending on who was doing the guaranteeing -- and remember, after a certain statutory profit everything else the Fed makes goes to the Treasury). The really big exposure was a serial use of the Fed window, which may have been a bad precedent but didn't end up being called.

http://www.google.com/search?q=The+U.S.+made+money+on+TARP+fallacy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

However, Paulson, not Geithner created the TARP, so I don't know that Geithner can get credit for whatever profits we allegedly made.

Timmeh handed over to banks whatever was left of the $1.6 when Timmeh took office, which was all Timmeh could possibly have handed over, unless he could travel back in time.

However, while Bush was still in office, Bush (rather shrewedly) said he would ask for release of the second half of the TARP only if Presient Elect Obama wanted Bush to ask; and Obama said yes, he did want Bush to ask for release of the second half of the TARP.

I am assuming that, before replying to Bush, Obama consulted with financial advisors, including Timmeh.

and even many foreign banks to pay AIG's CDOs at 100 cents on the dollar. A fraction of that could have been paid, it was a windfall for the banks and enabled record bonuses to be paid - with our tax money - while the rest of us suffered mightily.

As to the stress tests: they were, by reliable accounts, way less than what's needed to do the job e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Until we reinstitute Glass Steagall and have a thorough audit of the banking system and the Fed, we are on mighty shaky ground.

Horribly, horribly worse. There would be no financial sector to speak of.

Despite the fact that DUers ignore this repeatedy, I'll re-remind you: the banks that were deregulated by the Glass-Steagall repeal were not the banks that drove the economy over the cliff.

Let me repeat that, in the hopes that it will make some dent in DU's collective willful ignoring of this:

The banks that were deregulated by the Glass-Steagall repeal were not the banks that drove the economy over the cliff.

Because Glass-Steagall had been repealed, BoA and other retail banks were able to step in and save the investment banks. The Glass-Steagall repeal didn't cause the collapse, and because of it a lot of potential damage was avoided.

Who lie and cheat and steal and get big bonuses?

All banks were deregulated by Glass-Steagall, so yes, those banks that drove the economy over a cliff were among the banks deregulated by Phil Gramm and his merry henchmen. Why he and his wife (of Enron fame) are not in jail is a tribute to the ability of these banks to sneer at any standard of conduct.

And that clearly wasn't the point of repealing it, but instead to allow BoA to have a proprietary desk.

The Glass-Steagall repeal directly allowed for Citibank, Chase, and Wells Fargo to all underwrite mortgage-backed securities and CDO's when for decades beforehand they weren't. These formerly-commercial-deposit-only-banks' junk securities are what built the doomed sub-prime market in the first place.



LOL. As if "saving the banks" was something that needed to happen. That's a myth which is http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/may/18/us-economy-bank-bailout">easily disproven. How's BOA http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=newssearch&cd=3&ved=0CGcQqQIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dotspress.com%2Fbank-america-ready-for-asignificant-sale-of-assets%2F774284%2F&rct=j&q=bank%20of%20america&tbm=nws&ei=gV9cToqtDKLX0QGG_rXjAg&usg=AFQjCNE0R3y3HjivDRHoWfyTO_Ale1rDBQ&cad=rja">doing today, eh?

But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that allowing BOA to purchase Merrill Lynch really was necessary for some reason -- it wasn't at all; but let's just assume that it was -- what makes you think that Congress, after ramming though about a trillion dollars in bailout funds, couldn't have just as easily passed a law allowing for retail banks to quickly purchase diseased investment banks?

Your post is full of it.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure it just kept retail banks from opening up proprietary desks. They could still have tranched mortgages and sold them to investment banks. Or sold them directly to investment banks who tranched them. Under G-S, investment banks were forbidden to open retail checking and savings accounts... which none of them did after G-S was repealed. But in any case, retail banks were originators of less than 10% of the mortgages that ended up in CDOs, most came from dedicated originators like Countrywide (who, obviously, screwed up in their own way, but in a way that was unrelated to Glass-Steagall).

This is what Glass Steagall did that would have prevented the meltdown.

"The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

I mean, I suppose you could tranche a single mortgage, but that would be kind of silly.

"The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits."

You quote that as if it made your point rather than mine; I'm not sure why.

Look at it this way: under Glass-Steagall, there were two boxes

AAA
A A
AAA

BBB
B B
BBB

If you were in box A, you were a retail bank and could accept deposits from consumers. If you were in box B, you were an investment bank and could run a proprietary desk.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall made them one box. But the point was not for banks in box B to take retail deposits (none of them did, as far as I know). The point was for banks in box A to run proprietary desks (ie, invest their own money for the purpose of making more money).

Nothing about those boxes prevented a bank in box A from bundling a bunch of mortgages and issuing bonds on them.

What's more, the banks that were in box A were not the banks that imploded, and since none of the banks that did implode took advantage of their newfound ability to accept retail deposits from consumers, I don't see why people are so convinced the repeal of Glass-Steagall had anything to do with this.

Glass-Steagall didn't prevent retail banks from bundling mortgages, and the restriction it placed on investment banks was on something they didn't want to do and didn't do after the restriction was lifted. The repeal did allow Bank of America to step in and save Merrill; you may think that was a good or bad thing but I think we can both agree the response to a crisis didn't cause the crisis itself.

run a bank.

BTW, repeal of Glass Steagall was done under pressure from both Greenspan and President Clinton. Would Republican Geithner have objected to repeal? Has he asked to have it reinstated?

See also, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/KD03Dj02.html

Didn't that "seem" illegal when they were doing it?
I'll bet it did.

And that's why they didn't tell the GAO!!

Any decent accountant would know you had to report this on any balance. Course, these are thieves, not accountants, really.

as taking a loan. And the guarantor knows that when the guaranty is given.

But, you sound as though you would know that very well.

Typo edit.

required to run a bank. That was in 2007.

However, if Reply # 5 had said that, it would be wrong to contradict it flatly.

Your summary of Geithner's career is rather delicate. Put another way....

Geither worked for Kissinger Associates (yes, as in Henry Kissinger). After a number of positions in the U.S. government, he became director of the Policy Development and Review Department at the International Monetary Fund.

After that, he became president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he served while New York's Wall Street, the nation's banksters and others were busy raping the global economy. As president of the NY fed, he served as Chair of the Federal Open Market Committee.

He was also a member of the Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty.

In May 2007, he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank. (What could possibly wrong with that?)

In November, 2007, he rejected an offer to take over as Citigroup's chief executive.

"In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns. In the same year, he played a supporting role to Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, in the decision to bail out AIG just two days after deciding not to rescue Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy. As<>

(The direct quotes above are from Geithner's wiki.)

As stated, he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York while New York's Wall Street and America's banksters raped the global economy. Then, as Secretary of Treasury, directing the federal governments spending, including $350 billion of funds from the TARP. I'm sure there was no potential conflict of interest, though.

But, I digress. In any event, I don't think vaguely associating Geithner with Wall Street (if indeed Reply # 5 did so) can truly be said to be wrong. Well, not with a straight face, anyway.

But, then, it would be impossible to imagine a Treasury secretary who was not "Wall Street" by that definition.

And, you're right, I had forgotten about Kissinger. So, yes, he had two private sector jobs in his life.

They are not simply involved in finance in some way.

As investment bankers, they raise money for corporations, are (or were) very much involved in initial public offerings of securities for sale, including crap mortgage derivatives, and other public offerings of securities. mergers and acquisitions of stock (or assets), etc.

Didn't you know that?

If that isn't wall street, what is? Only {relative} small fry traders?

He never worked for any of those firms, and spent a lot of his career regulating them.

The good news is that I found only one reference to Kreuger on the DLC website, a sharp contrast with Goolsbee, who had been a DLC employee.

The bad news:

"Martin Feldstein, who was CEA chairman in the Reagan White House, praised the choice. 'His experience at the Treasury will give him a running start in his new job,” he said. “Alan is an expert in labor-market problems, taxation and the economics of terrorism. I hope the president listens to him.'"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/krueger_to_replace_goolsbee_in031852.php

If that's the only bad news, I guess Kreuger is head and shoulders above most of Obama's nominees, starting with Rahm, Geithner and Gates.

for executive/judicial offices. I searched DU for Krueger's name and found this post linking to a study by AK about minimum wage. Krueger co-authored the book Inequality in America : what role for human capital policies?

I'm not sure why you're saying the WH has nothing to do with this.

led by the Tea Party obstructionists, but the slim Democratic majority in the Senate may be able to pick up a few Republicans and end a filibuster.

...he's going to have to do things that will get through Congress, at which point DU will decide he too is a corporate stooge.

would HE bend over? I mean just because somebody is a progressive in his legislative career doesn't mean it'll necessarily move over to executive, Obama for example.

It's a pipe dream. There is no "bending over". There were some mistakes (not all that many when you get right down to it) but we really, really, really need to get over the delusion that the problem is that Obama isn't "fighting" enough.

Civil Rights Act, Head Start, about a jillion more.

And he gave them the "treatment". He did not bargain. He allowed them to survive politically if they did what he wanted.

Which is why when I see people contrasting Obama's behavior with that of LBJ or FDR I have to suppress a laugh.

the 64 Civil Rights Act to get passage, something Kennedy had not done.

In conjunction with the civil rights movement, Johnson overcame southern resistance and convinced Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed most forms of racial segregation. John F. Kennedy originally proposed the civil rights bill in June 1963.<44> He called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage.<45><46> After Kennedy's death, it was Johnson who broke a filibuster by Southern Democrats begun in March 1964 and pushed the bill through the Senate.<47>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson#1964_presidential_election

I don't suppress a laugh when anyone suggests that a Daley machine candidate with only 4 years previous political office could possibly be effective.

The states that supposedly gave LBJ such an easy job are red states now. About the only thing holding them in the Democratic Party was that the signer of the Emancipation Proclamation had been a Republican. After signing of the Civil Rights Act, they gradually went red.

Plus, LBJ had the same division between the Northeastern Democrats and Democrats in the West.

Continue to laugh away, if you will, it's good medicine, or so the Bible says, but you'd be wrong on the facts.

As the GOP is fond of pointing out, a greater % of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than of Democrats.

As the GOP is fond of pointing out, a greater % of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than of Democrats.

And, in fact, for the stimulus he ended up having to go to Snowe.

and smell the coffee. Obama is NOT fighting for us at all, not even in the slightest, and actually is fighting for convervatives not progressives. He's the one who has continually tried to cut SSI, putting it on the the slanted committees time and time again. He even PERSONALLY choose as the co-chairs of the first catfood committeee two people who had been pushing for SSI privatization for years and years.

Obama personally removed the single payer option from health care reform.
Obama personally took Medicare negotiating for better pricess from health care reform
Obama refused to take the constitutional option for the debt ceiling and refused to make that part of the previous "bend over" on the budget.
Obama gave the Repugs more tax cuts for the rich than they requested and increased taxes on the poor
Obama refused to support the unions in WI or OH
Obama's role model is Ronald Reagan

Name me one SINGLE thing he's done for working class people other than an occasional pretty speech?

Like the ongoing claim that Obama wants to cut Social Security, when he has in fact repeatedly said there will be NO cuts to Social Security, and negotiated a debt deal which protects it from any cuts. Or the claim that he "personally removed" single-payer from HCR, when the fact is that a single-payer plan would never even have passed the House, let alone the Senate.

In fact, every single thing you list is utterly false and the opposite of reality.

"Obama personally took Medicare negotiating for better pricess from health care reform"

Except that Medicare mass bargaining is explicitly part of the HCR deal, specifically in terms of getting concessions from prescription drug manufacturers.

"Obama refused to take the constitutional option for the debt ceiling and refused to make that part of the previous "bend over" on the budget."

There was no "constitutional option." The claim that the 14th Amendment creates a presidential power for unlimited debt is simply false.

"Obama gave the Repugs more tax cuts for the rich than they requested and increased taxes on the poor"

Again, false. Obama traded a short extension of the Bush tax cuts for MORE tax breaks and benefits for the poor and middle class.

"Obama refused to support the unions in WI or OH"

Except when he did support them, explicitly backing public sector collective bargaining as absolutely necessary.

"Obama's role model is Ronald Reagan"

Except he isn't. Obama cited Reagan as an example of a President who changed the national direction more than most others, a statement which I think any DUer would agree with. That doesn't even rise to admiration, let alone "role model" status.

For just one thing, even Obama said he would have used the 14th amendment (aka Constitutional option) if the debt ceiling had not been raised.

And as much as I like his performance so far I would have supported his removal from office over that.

Obama personally removed the single payer option from health care reform.
Obama personally took Medicare negotiating for better pricess from health care reform
Obama refused to take the constitutional option for the debt ceiling and refused to make that part of the previous "bend over" on the budget.
Obama gave the Repugs more tax cuts for the rich than they requested and increased taxes on the poor
Obama refused to support the unions in WI or OH
Obama's role model is Ronald Reagan

:eyes:

:rofl:

I find that earnestness cute.

I find it either disingenuous or the product of someone who believes every excuse, even ones the administration never even bothered to float.

because I like you. However, I recently learned from Ask the Administrators that references like "bend over" are considered homophobic and are therefore against the rules. And I do alert on all posts that I see and recognize as homophobic.

(Don't agree with you often, but I do like you. Imagine that.)

confirmed nominee equals an appointee.

Once the guy is in the job, anything he proposes to the Pres will have to go through the House, and if he proposes anything that might actually pass the House, people here will throw the new guy under the bus for being a "sell out." :eyes:

bring down unemployment..."

Why do I get the sense that the Republicans are going to do everything they can to make sure he's not confirmed?

They'll pout and talk about how evil the minimum wage is because imaginary retarded janitors get laid off, but I would be surprised if they filibuster a purely advisory position (since he can always simply appoint him special advisor to the President). Come to think of it I'm not sure why CEA is confirmed to begin with.

n/t

You know, those advise and consent provisions that your Reply 69 says you knew all about, but just did not express clearly?

And I'm guessing the head of the CEA might not fall within the "inferior officer" proviso, but, whether or not he or she is an inferior officer, Congress has not yet even purported to leace that office to the President or the Courts (head of department being inapplicable in this case)

For higher end jobs. If we want to take relief off the working class we need a better way to keep the higher end job employees employed!

:think:

While they're playing this game of musical chairs.

It's the theme song from the movie "The Sting".

Un-fucking-believable.
:nuke: