May 31, 2006Some Good News: Paulson to TreasuryThere's obviously been a lot of mounting dissapointment expressed with the Bush Administration in this space in the past year or so, but Hank Paulson's appointment to Treasury is an excellent, excellent pick. He's the Republican Bob Rubin, if you will (albeit Paulson has less political experience than Rubin did, so his Wash DC learning curve will be a bit steeper). Now, if Robert Zoellick can just be persuaded to stay on at State, we'd be beginning to make some real headway towards strengthening the White House team. Still, however, Rumsfeld's continuing presence at the Pentagon is a massive liability, positively screaming out for remedial action. And, of course, Cheney's mounting post 9/11 Addingtonism remains a festering sore too. But, for today, let's us praise the President for avoiding a crony pick, or a somewhat wanting 'Main Street' style salesman personage (a la John Snow), and instead going for the real cream of the crop at Treasury. Global markets are very likely going to be in for a hugely bumpy ride in the next few years (yes, count B.D. as a bear, of sorts), and having a top Wall Street pro at the helm of Treasury will help during what will likely prove to be very challenging times indeed (I wonder how many of Paulson's colleagues were surprised he took the job!). The Foreign Policy 'Passport' blog has more. And Bloomberg asks the key question: The question is whether Bush will give the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. chief executive officer the leeway to run Treasury and shape policy like Rubin, Bill Clinton's top economic adviser. We'll see....but for now, let's rejoice in an unimpeachably good pick. The issue is, as Bloomberg highlights, will Paulson be allowed to emerge as a real player? I hope so, and think he's far too smart to have taken this job without bona fide assurances that will be the case. Yes, even if this means a dimunition in the power of the Veep, Rove, and others. Here's hoping. P.S. More on Paulson, from a more personal angle, here. P.P.S.: FT: Mr Paulson’s appointment could address criticism that Mr Bush’s economy policy team lacks heavyweights. He has the chance to position himself as the leading voice on the US economy, at a time of rising volatility in the international financial markets, and while Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, has yet to acquire the decisive authority of his predecessor. It rings true to me that Josh Bolten was likely the key figure in successfully wooing Paulson to decamp from 85 Broad to the Treasury. It's a real coup, and the biggest accomplishment of Bolten's tenure as Chief of Staff yet, not least given that Paulson was persuaded to make this move late in the Bush Presidency, and, as I said, during a time that will likely see very, very choppy economic conditions. With Bernanke still getting his feet wet (putting aside the risible Money Honey dinner chit chat leakage, a sign of a frothy and incestuous navel-gazing market that depresses somewhat), the Paulson appointment comes at a very good time indeed. Posted by Gregory at May 31, 2006 10:49 AM | TrackBack (0) Comments
The only real question is whether Paulson already realizes what a disaster the Bush mega-deficits are, and will have the power to end Bush's fat cat tax cuts and restore fiscal discipline. It doesn't matter if you have a seat at the table if you are a devotee of the same kind of Kool-Aid being served at every meal. Posted by: p,lukasiak at May 31, 2006 05:24 PM | Permalink to this commentI know that Bush single handedly ruined our economy. That is why it is doing so well. He spent a fortune. The US economy set records. He gave tax cuts to the rich. The US economy set even more records. He went to war with Iraq. The US economy boomed. He single handedly raised the price of oil to help chenney's stocks in haliburton and still the US economy soared. If you want to be mad at bush for something be mad about the immigration disaster. The economy is one of his strong points. Posted by: Rogue at June 2, 2006 12:16 AM | Permalink to this commentIf you want to be mad at bush for something be mad about the immigration disaster. The economy is one of his strong points I think you forgot to include the words, "relatively speaking" Posted by: p,lukasiak at June 2, 2006 10:32 PM | Permalink to this commentSaying that Bush is strong on the economy is like saying Enron was strong on accounting, isn't it? Both are/were plunging headlong into bankruptcy at previously unheard of rates... Rogue -- In case you are not being sarcastic -- its hard to tell in writing. the long term growth trend of US real gdp is 3.5%. In the five years of the Bush administration real gdp growth has averged 2.5% -- the two other time in modern history this has happened JFK ran on a campaign of let's get the economy moving again and clinton said it's the economy stupid. Ok, I'll play the Republican spin game and throw out the bad numbers. If you exclude the first two years over the last three years real gdp growth has averged 3.5%. that's right, the bush boom is to achieve averge growth. Since the Fed has been extremely aggressive for most of this period -- fed funds fell to 1% -- and the military budget has I was reading online, and the Capital Research Center did a newsletter about Hank Paulson was the Chairman of The Nature Conservancy. You can read the entire newsletter here: http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.asp?ID=516 Posted by: Laura at June 5, 2006 06:38 PM | Permalink to this comment |
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Lunch w/ the FT...
Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
|
|||