Treasury Secretary Jon Corzine?

Everyone is excited about the fact that President-elect Barack Obama is talking with New York Senator Hillary Clinton about the prospect that she might serve as Secretary of State. But the big news from inside the transition process is the speculation that New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine might be selected for the essential economic position of Secretary of the Treasury.

Corzine certainly has one of the "qualifications" that official Washington demands. He is a former senior partner with Goldman Sachs, the firm that has contributed so many Cabinet secretaries and administration insiders over so many years that it is referred to as "Government Sachs."

But Corzine is not your typical Goldman-Sachs man.

After he was elected to the US Senate from New Jersey in 2000, Corzine searched out Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone. The new senator from New Jersey informed the iconic liberal Democrat -- who was often at odds with his own party's leadership -- that he hoped they could work together on social and economic justice issues.

Corzine, a very wealthy former Goldman-Sachs chairman and co-CEO, might have seemed like an unlikely economic populist. But he soon made the senator from Minnesota a believer. Indeed, when we were sitting in his office one afternoon in 2001, talking about the senators who could be counted on to stand up to the new Bush-Cheney administration, Wellstone said, "Put Corzine of the list. He's going to surprise people.

During his five years in the Senate, Corzine did, indeed, side with Wellstone (until the Minnesotan's death in 2002) and with the left wing of the Democratic Senate Caucus -- sponsoring the "Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act" to expand access to health care for children and pregnant women and a proposal to lower the marginal tax bracket from 15 percent to 10 percent for low-income wage earners. Corzine worked with Wellstone and Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy to defend Pell Grants and entitlement programs that were under attack, he criticized schemes to privatize Social Security and played a critical role in passing legislation designed to crack down on corporate malfeasance.

The senator from New Jersey promoted regulation of major industries (chemical and nuclear power, in particular) and he was one of the few senators to question blank-check giveaways to the airline industry in aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Corzine also voted against authorizing Bush to take the country to war with Iraq and got a whole lot of other issues -- not all of them, but a whole lot -- right.

It is rare that someone with Corzine's record even gets on a list of prospective Treasury officials.

Corzine may or may not be the perfect pick. But the fact that he is being considered is one more sign that a change -- maybe even a "change we can believe in" -- is coming to Washington.

After all, when was the last time that a potential nominee for the Treasury post was being talked up by the head of the Service Employees International Union. On Thursday, Andy Stern told reporters he thought the governor's strong economic credentials and government experience make Corzine an appealing prospect. Stern's right.

Comments (84)

1. Why do I expect we'll get some criticism of Corzine as SecTreasury....

   from the "pure progressives"?

   Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 3:17pm

2. Posted by freiheit1 at 11/14/2008 @ 4:00pm: Oh, wait, I see, a former Senior Partner of Goldman Sachs is only a bad thing if he's a Republican? I understand now.

   Perhaps you could try actually reading the article. If you did, you might learn that he is nothing like a Republican.

   Posted by rivermonk at 11/14/2008 @ 4:17pm

3. hillary will only agree to be secretary of state

   if bill gets to be secretary of the interior.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/14/2008 @ 4:18pm

4. Corzine is probably the best that could be expected of a capitalist government, so I wouldn't actively oppose him, unlike a Robert Rubin or Lawrence Summers. Doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticized, but stopping Hillary at State or Gates at Defense would be higher on my priority list.

   Posted by cka2nd at 11/14/2008 @ 4:47pm

5. 'Everyone is excited about the fact that President-elect Barack Obama is talking with New York Senator Hillary Clinton about the prospect that she might serve as Secretary of State.'

   Everyone from your universe John?

   Some of us are very discouraged and depressed about this.

   Is it possible that someone who doesn't have Goldman Sachs in their resume can be found for Treasury Secretary?

   The number of Goldman Sachs alumni in our government past and present is alarming, and certainly shouldn't be characterized as "change we can believe in." Rather, it is the tired status quo of an investment bank behemoth that is in large part responsible for our financial crisis having extraordinary influence over our government, and now more than ever, us, as tax payers mandated to bail out these "legalized" criminals against our will.

   Posted by OneVote at 11/14/2008 @ 4:54pm

6. Perhaps you could try actually reading the article. If you did, you might learn that he is nothing like a Republican.

   Posted by rivermonk at 11/14/2008 @ 4:17pm

   Thanks Rivermonk, but perhaps you should realize that our current Sec of Treasury is a Republican and former Goldman Sachs CEO. That was my point. I agree Corzine is nothing like a Republican. Duh.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 11/14/2008 @ 5:40pm

7. Posted by OneVote at 11/14/2008 @ 4:54pm

   Well said!

   Posted by freiheit1 at 11/14/2008 @ 6:04pm

8. "The number of Goldman Sachs alumni in our government past and present is alarming, and certainly shouldn't be characterized as "change we can believe in.""

   those Goldman Sachs people are not in Obama's gov't, so the "change we can believe in" does not apply.

   you're jumping the gun.

   Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 8:09pm

9. Fasten your seatbelts

   Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/14/2008 @ 8:33pm

10. Not intended as a low blow, just a friendly reminder. Hi, Frei.

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/14/2008 @ 8:36pm

11. Among the Dems, Corzine is by far best choice.

    Just as old Joe Kennedy was FDR's best choice as SEC chair. The wolf of Wall St knew all the Wall St tricks & put shackles on the pirates that kept them in line for decades.

    Corzine has already spoken out on the crisis, displaying not only deeper knowledge but more progressive views than Obama himself.

    Posted by sloper at 11/14/2008 @ 9:46pm

12. Off-topic, except for people possibly assuming leadership roles....have you heard the latest from Michael Steele?

    He's pushing for RNC chair, but THIS is from the Daily Telegraph out of London-

    "Michael Steele, a rising star in the party and one of its most prominent African Americans, admitted it "will get hammered" next week in Congressional races.

    "We could very well be looking at a situation where we don't get it back by 2016 or even 2020," said Mr Steele. "So we could be looking at 12 years out like the Tories.

    "They went through a long dark winter of reassessment and realignment, but now David Cameron has got himself in a position where he looks like he is going to be the next prime minister." ------------------------------------

    What kind of GOP Party Chair says "Oh, look we may actually be out of power for TWO terms of Obama and even an extra Democratic Presidential term"?!??!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 10:06pm

13. "What kind of GOP Party Chair says "Oh, look we may actually be out of power for TWO terms of Obama and even an extra Democratic Presidential term"?!??!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 10:06pm

    He's not the party chair. Re-read your post.

    Posted by ACook at 11/14/2008 @ 10:18pm

14. i hate to say it but....nader & mckinney were right. i wonder how katrina is going to spin the coming Restoration of Clintonian Democratic Party. I can see her now battling it out with Jonathan Alter, another "progressive" voice. Let them eat hope.

    Posted by nationy at 11/15/2008 @ 02:33am

15. Why are there no "Detroit Bailout" articles in The Nation?

    Posted by bleedingheart at 11/15/2008 @ 05:53am

16. Change:

    Statement of Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen

    WASHINGTON - November 14 - The incoming Democratic freshmen of the House of Representatives are about to get their first lesson in good old boy politics. Unfortunately, the example being set by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) is exactly the kind of initiation these new members don't need.

    Dingell and Rahall are hosting a Washington, D.C., fundraiser Wednesday to help the newly elected Democrats retire their campaign debt. According to the invitation, political action committees (PACs) are encouraged to contribute $20,000 apiece, while individuals are asked to consider chipping in $10,000 each.

    What's wrong with this picture? Before they're even sworn in, these 23 lawmakers will be exposed to the quid pro quo relationship between elected officials and their wealthy benefactors - lobbyists and corporate power brokers.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/15/2008 @ 09:14am

17. "How remarkable that you can simultaneously act for all those people," says former investment banker Philip Augar, whose new book, The Greed Merchants, explores how the Big Three investment banks--Goldman, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch--have thrived in an era of deregulation and global competition. "But that's the system. It's allowed." Augar attributes the Big Three's success to what he calls "the edge": the informational advantage that a firm intimately connected with governments, corporations, and investors around the world has over those governments, corporations, and investors--a.k.a. customers. With Morgan Stanley caught in a power struggle and retail-dependent Merrill Lynch still recovering from the stock market's boom and bust, Goldman is currently in by far the best position to exploit that edge"

    Posted by OneVote at 11/15/2008 @ 10:03am

18. continued:

    "What finally shot Goldman past its rivals was its decision during the 1980s takeover wars to side with corporate America against the LBO artists--cementing its status as the CEO's friend. But now Goldman's big paydays come from trading. Of the $6.7 billion it earned before taxes last year (it also paid $9.6 billion, or $463,000 per employee, in compensation and benefits), 75% came from trading and investments like its 15.5% stake in Archipelago."

    GOLDMAN: WE RUN WALL STREET By playing all sides of the NYSE deal, Goldman Sachs sent a powerful message. Here's how it got so far ahead.

    By Justin Fox - Fortune Magazine May 16, 2005

    Posted by OneVote at 11/15/2008 @ 10:05am

19. Some notable alumni of firm that runs Wall Street - Source: Wikipedia.

    Joshua Bolten - current White House Chief of Staff Erin Burnett - CNBC Host Jon Corzine - Governor of the State of New Jersey. Michael Cohrs - Head of Global Banking at Deutsche Bank Emanuel Derman - Author of My Life as a Quant and co-developer of the Black-Derman-Toy model. Jim Cramer - founder of TheStreet.com, best selling author, and host of Mad Money on CNBC Henry H. Fowler - 58th United States Secretary of the Treasury (1965-1969) Edward Lampert- Hedge Fund Manager of ESL Investments. Brought K-Mart out of Bankruptcy in 2003. Ashwin Navin - President and co-founder of BitTorrent, Inc. Abby Joseph Cohen - Perma-bull market forecaster formerly of Drexel Burnham Lambert George Herbert Walker IV - member of the Bush family and current managing director at Neuberger Berman Robert Zoellick - United States Trade Representative (2001-2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005-2006), World Bank President. Mark Carney - Current Governor of the Bank of Canada [32][33] Henry Paulson - Current United States Treasury Secretary. Neel Kashkari - Administrator of the $700 billion U.S. Government Troubled Assets Relief Program in 2008. Robert Rubin - Former United States Treasury Secretary, ex-Chairman of Citigroup. Charlie Haas - Wrestler, who is working for World Wrestling Entertainment. Malcolm Turnbull - Australian politician, currently the federal leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. Former managing director and later a partner of Goldman Sachs in Australia. John Thain - Chairman and CEO, Merrill Lynch, and former chairman of the NYSE. Robert Steel - Chairman and President, Wachovia.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/15/2008 @ 10:10am

20. Why do I expect we'll get some criticism of Corzine as SecTreasury....

    from the "pure progressives"?

    Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 3:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    The Kool-Aide waitress making her rounds again. "Don't expect too much dear, and you won't be disappointed."

    Posted by OneVote at 11/15/2008 @ 10:12am

21. Does this mean, the yanks will be able to sign all of the new free agents?

    Posted by swenniebob at 11/15/2008 @ 12:16pm

22. 1998 bailout

    LTCM's financial problems sent shock waves throughout financial markets, as illustrated by the September 21, 1998 cover of Business Week[18]Goldman Sachs, AIG and Berkshire Hathaway offered then to buy out the fund's partners for $250 million, to inject $3.75 billion and to operate LTCM within Goldman's own trading division. The offer was rejected and the same day the Federal Reserve Bank of New York organized a bailout of $3.625 billion by the major creditors to avoid a wider collapse in the financial markets. The contributions from the various institutions were as follows: [19] [20]

    $300 million: Bankers Trust, Barclays, Chase, Credit Suisse First Boston, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, J.P.Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Salomon Smith Barney, UBS $125 million: Société Générale $100 million: Lehman Brothers, Paribas Bear Stearns declined to participate. In return, the participating banks got a 90% share in the fund and a promise that a supervisory board would be established.

    The fear was that there would be a chain reaction as the company liquidated its securities to cover its debt, leading to a drop in prices, which would force other companies to liquidate their own debt creating a vicious cycle.

    The total losses were found to be $4.6 billion. The losses in the major investment categories were (ordered by magnitude):[21]

    $1.6 bn in swaps $1.3 bn in equity volatility $430 mn in Russia and other emerging markets $371 mn in directional trades in developed countries $215 mn in yield curve arbitrage $203 mn in S&P 500 stocks $100 mn in junk bond arbitrage no substantial losses in merger arbitrage See also: East Asian financial crisis Long Term Capital was audited by Price Waterhouse LLP.

    Unsurprisingly, after

    Posted by OneVote at 11/15/2008 @ 12:35pm

23. Could one of the posters here try to summarize Nichols vision for our country? I've been reading posts here for over a year, and I find that I disagree with almost every thing the guy ever writes. To me, it is like coming across an alien from Epsilon Eridani. There is no common framework for understanding. What does this guy expect?

    Posted by sntauri at 11/15/2008 @ 12:36pm

24. Posted by sntauri at 11/15/2008

    ,maybe it's you. perhaps you are on the wrong blog. try the Washington Times.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/15/2008 @ 12:46pm

25. continued:

    Unsurprisingly, after the bailout by the other investors, the panic abated, and the positions formerly held by LTCM were eventually liquidated at a small profit to the bailers.

    Some industry officials said that Federal Reserve Bank of New York involvement in the rescue, however benign, would encourage large financial institutions to assume more risk, in the belief that the Federal Reserve would intervene on their behalf in the event of trouble. Federal Reserve Bank of New York actions raised concerns among some market observers that it could create moral hazard.[22]

    Source: Wikipedia

    Posted by OneVote at 11/15/2008 @ 12:48pm

26. Note Jon Corzine's involvemnt with Long Term Capital Management. The Michael Milken who didn't get caught? Good for the Treasury? BTW - Corzine made a cool $400 million on Goldman Sachs IPO despite being pushed out by Hank Paulson.

    Note it was Bill Clinton who signed into law the Commodities Futures Modernization Act - the act which deregulated default swaps, derivatives, and energy futures trade.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/15/2008 @ 12:57pm

27. You cannot be serious about Corzine. What this country does not need is a former CEO from Goldman Sachs at Treasury. We've already had Rubin (under Clinton) and now Paulson. What about Paul Krugman? Paul Volcker perhaps, for one term, although he is 81. Certainly not any more Goldman alums.

    Posted by lls20 at 11/15/2008 @ 1:13pm

28. Top contributors to Jon Corzine 2002 election cycle - Opensecrets.org

    Goldman Sachs $580,870 Kushner Companies $85,000 Lehman Brothers $46,700 Sullivan & Cromwell $36,000 American International Group $34,750 Merrill Lynch $24,250 Bear Stearns $23,250 Cme Assoc $14,000 Welsh, Carson et al $13,250 Edgewood Properties $12,000 Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $12,000 Wolff & Samson $12,000 Morgan Stanley $11,500 Bond Market Assn $11,000 Corzine 2000 Inc $10,200 Americans for Responsible Leadership $10,000 Assn of Trial Lawyers of America $10,000 Clinton Group $10,000 Communications Workers of America $10,000 Credit Suisse First Boston $10,000 Jesco Inc $10,000 Laborers Union $10,000

    Posted by OneVote at 11/15/2008 @ 1:24pm

29. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=OneVote

    so what? show me one elected politician who did not get any money from those or comparable sources.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/15/2008 @ 1:37pm

30. Is it possible to find anyone who understands the intersections of finance and national government who doesn't have dirty hands? I doubt it. You'd have to end up picking someone like me; I've never been involved with big money or even big salaries. Corzine is a remarkable person - from an Illinois farm family, then into Marine reserves, then a banker, next Goldman Sachs, from there the Senate and now Governor of New Jersey. And he didn't turn into a Republican at any point. Amazing. He's articulate and self-created. I've always thought the biggest political problem he faces is his messy divorce. Otherwise he's one of the best government leaders we have. Let's get real folks; world finance isn't nursery school.

    Posted by linjentoo at 11/15/2008 @ 1:42pm

31. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=emile%20duBois

    So what?

    If things don't change, how can they get better?

    Can't we have a person in charge who is not bought and sold? Who might work for us?

    And if we can't, we shouldn't care? Oh well. It'll be OK?

    It will not be OK. Time is running out for America and the world.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 1:56pm

32. Selecting another Goldman alum for Treasury is not change I believe in. There are many able academics, but how about Paul Krugman, if he would take it? I can't believe all the hard work I did for 20 months on the Obama campaign (as a volunteer) is going to lead to someone like this at Treasury as well as HRC at State. Perhaps Corzine is to be commended for remaining a Democrat, but his Goldman ties as well as the donations to his Senate campaign in 2001 (per above post from "One Vote") create problems for me. It's time for people without all the baggage. It's time for some people who have to think for a living (like Krugman) to have some role in government. His messy divorce, his conflict of interest with a past romantic liason while he's been NJ Governor, the accident in 2007 (which demonstrated a certain recklessness) are all problems for me. But the biggest problem is his ties to Goldman.

    Posted by lls20 at 11/15/2008 @ 2:05pm

33. i live in NJ so i am quite familiar with Corzine. he hasn't done a bad job - although he walked into a huge mess brought on by whitman's tax cuts and mcgreevy's inabilty/unwillingness to actually deal with the structural deficit.

    Corzine is unpopular though, he has raised taxes and cut spending. few are happy, some think his cuts arent enough, others too much. his 'bold' solutions have included a sales tax hike while rejecting a more progressive tax on lawyer and accountant fees. and the ill-advised selling off of the turnpike (not happening).

    we in NJ will still end up with a democrat because, i think, Senate majority leader Codey is a shoo-in - he will be acting gov. if corzine goes to washington.

    Posted by jdowd73 at 11/15/2008 @ 2:27pm

34. JR,

    quit being such a tight-ass.

    if you want to point out inconsistencies, fine.

    but, please, quit the nonsense.

    it's below you.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/15/2008 @ 3:35pm

35. Is Corzine the best we can do?

    NJ's budget deficit worsens as economy sags

    By ANGELA DELLI SANTI | Associated Press Writer November 12, 2008

    TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey got more unwelcome economic news Wednesday: With tax revenues off by $258 million through the first four months of the fiscal year, the state's budget deficit could reach a staggering $1.2 billion, administration officials reported.

    The new deficit projection is triple the previous $400 million prediction and likely will force a new round of cuts to the budget that went into effect on July 1.

    Posted by Incoming at 11/15/2008 @ 3:55pm

36. maybe it's you. perhaps you are on the wrong blog. try the Washington Times. Posted by emile duBois at 11/15/2008 @ 12:46pm

    LOL!

    I been mooned by the librool press.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/15/2008 @ 5:14pm

37. John,

    Why in the world did you start your post by declaring that everyone is excited about HRC as our Secretary of State?

    I sure the hell am not excited about HRC for that position, or any other high-level post. The woman is a dishonest, opportunistic liar, and she provided ample evidence of that during the primary campaign. And Corzine for the Treasury post? Oy.

    Maybe you and I have very different notions about what Obama meant when he promised "Change."

    Posted by eagleye at 11/15/2008 @ 7:48pm

38. Cheney/Bush had Freidmanites / trickledowners.

    Sounds like a lot of folks believe Obama's making moves in this direction. That the change claim is a farce.

    I think this a stretch. Whomever Obama would be considering for this post, in his and his inner circle's aide's estimatation, necessarily is on board with his plan to reign in corporate / high finance abuse and focus on the middle class.

    Posted by winyahn at 11/15/2008 @ 11:02pm

39. Estimatation!

    Posted by winyahn at 11/15/2008 @ 11:04pm

40. Could some of these "Corzine not progressive enough" folks, please give us THEIR list of potential nominees to Secretary of the Treasury...

    and please don't surprise me by NOT naming Ralph Nader or Naomi Klein or Thom Hartmann!

    Posted by Mask at 11/15/2008 @ 11:05pm

41. Posted by Mask at 11/15/2008 @ 11:05pm

    Maybe they'll listen to you Mask. Every time I pose this question it tends to get ignored (although I JUST posted that to Malcontent on another thread, so I'm exempting him from that so far).

    Posted by yutsano at 11/15/2008 @ 11:09pm

42. Really? Everyone's happy about Hillary as Secretary of State? Is the same Nation that blasted her for voting for the war as if Barack (I keep funding the war) Obama wouldn't have had he been at the U.S. level? Is this the same nation who blasted her for the "annihilate them" phrase? Remind us again why we couldn't have had 8 years of Hillary and THEN 8 years of Barack so we could focus on the LOCAL elections instead of having to save ourselves from the Republican Abyss?

    Posted by womanrunningwwolves at 11/16/2008 @ 12:24am

43. Really? Everyone's happy about Hillary as Secretary of State? Is the same Nation that blasted her for voting for the war as if Barack (I keep funding the war) Obama wouldn't have had he been at the U.S. level? Is this the same nation who blasted her for the "annihilate them" phrase? Remind us again why we couldn't have had 8 years of Hillary and THEN 8 years of Barack so we could focus on the LOCAL elections instead of having to save ourselves from the Republican Abyss?

    Posted by womanrunningwwolves at 11/16/2008 @ 12:24am

44. At least Corzine wasn't part of the Clinton administration. Although he is in Clintons corner.

    People complain that Obama seems to be stacking a lot of Clintonites into his administration. But don't seem to understand that if you want Democrats with experience in government it would be hard to throw a rock and not hit someone who had served in the Clinton administration.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/16/2008 @ 08:07am

45. Posted by Mask at 11/15/2008 @ 11:05pm

    Alan Greenspan?

    LOL.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2008 @ 09:35am

46. Chaos, some deserve to have rocks thrown at them. Others, like Reich, deserve a second look.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/16/2008 @ 09:41am

47. Posted by Mask at 11/15/2008 @ 11:05pm

    Laura Tyson - Treasury Secretary

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/16/2008 @ 10:22am

48. I don't know why The Nation is not reporting on all this talk about Hillary as Secretary of State?

    Aside from her obvious disdain for direct talks to adversaries, which puts her squarely at odds with Obama's approach, Bill has NOT come clean with who these donors are to the Clinton Library and what do they want in exchange for their donation?

    It is clear that Bill promised these donors "something", and we need to know if fulfilling such promises through Hillary would undermine Obama's foreign policy vision or his foreign policy objectives as president.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/16/2008 @ 10:40am

49. With all due respect to John Nichols I don't really see too many people including myself who are "exicited" about Hillary as Secretary of State.

    But then again I may be progressively blind.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/16/2008 @ 10:58am

50. Ravi Batra economist and author of "Greenspans Fraud" would make a great Secretary of the Treasury.

    Then I tell myself "dream on".

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/16/2008 @ 11:04am

51. How about anybody, with a higher than grade 12 education, who does not come from, or plan on going back to, the industry they are going to regulate?

    For every post.

    Is this asking too much?

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/16/2008 @ 11:34am

52. 'Section 108. Conflicts of Interest. The Secretary is required to issue regulations or guidelines to manage or prohibit conflicts of interest in the administration of the program.'

    The Bailout Bill --

    Has anyone seen the conflicts of interest regulations and guidelines as yet?

    Perhaps the choice of Treasury Secretary should be subjected to a "reasonable person" test of conflicts of interest, looking backward, and going forward.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2008 @ 11:39am

53. 'The Fed, for example, refuses to say who received some $2 trillion in emergency loans that have showed up on its balance sheet.

    Nor will it disclose the collateral for those loans.

    This month, Bloomberg News filed a lawsuit against the Fed, demanding it disclose the information after the central bank denied the news agency's request under the Freedom of Information Act.

    By the end of last week, a group of lawmakers cried for disclosure.

    "There cannot be accountability in government and in our financial institutions without transparency," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a prepared statement. "Many of the financial problems we are facing today are the direct result of too much secrecy and too little accountability."

    ‘Pretty sure' Not everyone in Congress shares Cornyn's concerns. Asked whether the Fed should reveal the collateral it accepted, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who heads the House Financial Services Committee, told Bloomberg he'd discussed the matter with Timothy Geithner, head of the New York Fed and a possible candidate for Treasury secretary in the Obama administration.

    "I talked to Geithner, and he was pretty sure that they're OK," Frank told Bloomberg.

    We'll all no doubt sleep easier knowing that our government has loaned $2 trillion to potentially troubled financial institutions and the guardians of our economy are "pretty sure they're OK."'

    Excerpt from:

    Pull away blanket of secrecy on federal bailout By LOREN STEFFY Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle Nov. 15, 2008, 12:51AM

    Hey....how about Barney Frank...a real progressive. And Geithner.....how about it...."pretty sure".....?

    Obama needs to quit fishing in the cesspool.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2008 @ 12:07pm

54. This proposal isn't bad enough on its face - a limosine liberal who bought his New Jersey Senate seat - without him having been a former Goldman Sachs partner? Just what we need in a time of crisis caused in no small part by the Corsine's of the world. Is this appointment something for which Corsine's now campaigning, something which he's already purchased? Given the bevy of lobbyists in Stephin Fetchit's "transition team" in which the pay now, buy later potential is becoming more and more apparent, John's having his oar in now would seem best to serve his purposes if that's the case. Another brilliancy from the system: John Corsine for Treasury Secretary. Oy!

    Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 12:21pm

55. Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2008 @ 12:07pm

    "Obama needs to quit fishing in the cesspool."

    When sewer trout are all that are available, fishing in the cesspool that is the system is all that remains to you. Most sensible people realized this prior to the election and either stayed away or voted independent or third party for fear of contamination.

    Now the limitations of system politics become clear: The greatest economic crisis perhaps of all time and not one of these eels has the slightest idea about what to do. Every one of them is at sea. I'll give this to Obama, he seems suitably grave about the problems he'll face. But that probably because he senses his lack of capacity to bring about solutions with substance. He rode the back of the system to gain office and is now its posterboy. He said all the things he needed to and backtracked on all the issues he felt were dangerous to his being elected so as to insure his ascendance. And now he stares into the void without a clue, with a fishing line into the putrescence, smelling the vapor.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 12:57pm

56. And now he stares into the void without a clue, with a fishing line into the putrescence, smelling the vapor.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 12:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You got it. And for those who yearn for the easy credit economic cycle of the glorious Clinton years, good luck. The seeds are sown.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2008 @ 1:08pm

57. Fairly recently a candidate for county office around here campaigned as a reformer. He was elected & promptly began complaining about the entrenched, uncooperative people who wouldn't go along with his program. He shortly began to be seen by the electorate as a haughty & dictatorial type & was eventually recalled. His problem? Not enough allies in place to buck the tide of "functioning & workable" govt. A primer in why things never seem to change.

    If only the highly structured grassroots strategies that lead to victory federally could be used after election, we'd see some positive results. We're familiar with employees in the private sector training foreign nationals to replace themselves. How about "de-programmers" saving the jobs of existing fed employees? Plenty of new talent to draw upon in this slumping economy in the event of recalcitrance or foot dragging!

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/16/2008 @ 1:34pm

58. A primer in why things never seem to change.

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/16/2008 @ 1:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Another primer......The Tag Team...

    "Obama is showing great good sense in making use of their experience," said William Galston, a former Clinton domestic policy adviser who's now at the Brookings Institution. "You have an entire cadre of people in their 30s and 40s and early 50s who were either in senior jobs or second- and third-tier jobs in the Clinton administration, who really earned their spurs and know their way around -- and know something about how the institutions in which they served actually function."

    Galston noted that while Clinton shunned the remnants of the Carter Administration in 1992, Obama's Democratic predecessor led a popular eight-year administration, and the party is no longer riven by deep ideological splits.

    "The president-elect has the great good fortune of having a Democratic Party with a usable past," said Galston, who downplayed the differences between the Clinton and Obama camps during the primary. "It was never a substantive or an ideological split -- it was more like Team A and Team B."

    Source: The Clinton band is back together By BEN SMITH & CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 11/14/08 4:48 AM EST - Politico

    Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2008 @ 2:28pm

59. Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2008 @ 1:08pm

    "And for those who yearn for the easy credit economic cycle of the glorious Clinton years, good luck."

    And to any that think that to re-engineer the same conditions, the easy credit - yet most solutions that have been offered have that in view - is to invite more of the fantasy that got us here in the first place. You simply don't create value with leverage of the kind that been exerted since these debt instruments first saw the light of day. Having people of the mentality of a Robert Rubin in your entourage is to invite disaster. There's not a new mind in the bunch Obama has around him. Paul Voelker is touted because of his performance in the late 1970s, early 1980s. But we're not confronted with stagflation, rather with deflation, and the available interest rate manipulations are all but exhausted without having an effect. And fiscal policy will require something more than Nancy Pelosi can imagine. A road and bridge building program is fine but will hardly be enough. This isn't 1930s Germany. What needed is a wholesale remaking of present structures with a plan - a real plan - bent upon nothing less than re-industrialization. The need for infrastructure repair will emerge naturally from this plan as will higher employment and consumption. Sad to say, but we need a kind of Five Year Plan bent on creating brand new companies to take on the Chinese and Indians on their own terms, the same products and services, but done here. We need to begin seeing ourselves as they do: As a developing nation. We threw away what development we had previously. Now ask yourself if Obama is likely to offer something along those lines.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 2:53pm

60. Now ask yourself if Obama is likely to offer something along those lines.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Not a chance. He is stuck (with the help of his party) with a huge national debt growing bigger and bigger every day, declining tax revenues in a declining economy, two wars and countless other military and related intelligence entanglements, the prospect of raising taxes on a public whose economic prospects and net worth are on the decline, unfunded social security and medicare needs, foreign lenders who more and more are considering the dollar as trash (heard the other day the Chinese are dumping more dollars for gold), a service economy whose health is premised on a house of cards easy credit Ponzi economic theory, states who clamoring for more federal funds and are running large deficits themselves, on and on.

    In this environment, and with Obama's apparent loyalty to entrenched interests, the reforms of which you speak will not even be meaningfully commenced. I envision a more divisive nation, not less, as everyone scrambles to protect themselves from the storm.

    Watch Wizard of Oz tonight. "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." The political satire hits home.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2008 @ 3:18pm

61. Posted by Sorelish at 11/16/2008 @ 1:34pm

    "Obama is showing great good sense in making use of their experience," said William Galston, a former Clinton domestic policy adviser who's now at the Brookings Institution."

    Will someone volunteer to give Galston an emema? Its precisely the experience of the 1990s that needs to be avoided, yet this shmendrik sees this as beneficial? The last thing we need are "experienced" people. I think most of us have had quite enough of the kind of "experience" that has brought about the twin disasters of economic collapse and never-ending war, and that from the Brookings Institution most particularly.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 3:25pm

62. Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2008 @ 2:28pm

    Oh well...

    "He is no wise man that will quit a certainty for an uncertainty." Samuel Johnson

    Posted by Sorelish at 11/16/2008 @ 3:59pm

63. It doesn't seem to matter who President elect Obama chooses for his cabinet, none of them will please everybody that is obvious. All I know is that he is a very smart man and will choose people carefully and for the right positions. We keep hearing about "how can this person be change or that person be change" if it happens to be someone he knows well and feels comfortable with. Does it mean every person he appoints have to be "NEW" in the sense we have never seen or heard of them before....remember Sarah Palin, now there is a prime example of why he would choose qualified people over "anything new will do"!!!!!!

    Posted by Caj at 11/16/2008 @ 4:08pm

64. Posted by Caj at 11/16/2008 @ 4:08pm

    We insist on somebody "new", because everybody old has a demonstrable record, proving them to be incompetent or corrupt.

    Change means just that. Change. Hence, more of the same (bad policies, corrupt partisans and outright record of theft), does not qualify.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/16/2008 @ 4:26pm

65. Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2008 @ 3:18pm

    "Watch Wizard of Oz tonight. 'Somewhere Over the Rainbow.' The political satire hits home."

    Every time I watch a "news" program I get the feeling that I'm viewing the Wizard Of Oz, OneVote. Every image is of quixotic and self-serving attempts at applying patches to a deflating tire. The bail-out as it was originally conceived and the GM rescue on tap at the moment are classic examples. And can you grasp the depth of the crisis if the Congress suddenly were to exert itself lead by the fiscal genius of a Nancy Pelosi? I simply can't imagine. After ascending to control of the Congress after the 2006 election, these birds had nothing but anti-Bush on which to trade, nothing positive of their own. They simply sat out the interval in the most pathetic and naseating way possible and now, with even larger majorities, envision the period after January 20th as their turn at the trough.

    The fact that Barak Obama is the creature of these bacteria and is, from all appearances, fully in accord with them, is the most daunting fact of all. Many, after being lied to, spied upon and used for eight years, had yearned for something genuinely new. Yet the system never once offered them the structures to realize their aspirations nor will it. Maybe this time, after they tire of being offered "hope", they'll be moved by the depth of our crises, foreign and domestic, to accept nothing less than whole cloth. They're lost in Oz at the moment.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 4:56pm

66. You can't assume though that all these appointee's are corrupt etc...of course we don't want any of those people if that is the case. We want a government that is clean and will do the right thing for this country, there has been enough shady dealings over the past 8 years. So you are right "change does mean change" but it's got to be change for the better and not just the name sake!!

    Posted by Caj at 11/16/2008 @ 4:56pm

67. The best definition of a compromise is no one goes home happy. Face it, in order to actually get stuff done, Obama is gonna have to deal with folks who know how the engines work. Plus this is all rampant speculation that feeds into the conservative meme of buyer's remose surrounding Obama. I'm still rather excited, I think he'll pull a team together that will accomplish a lot in the next four years.

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 6:20pm

68. Obama will put a good team together and it will be for the good of the country, of course not everyone will be happy. At the end of the day, he will have the last say on decisions and we can only hope things will work out. I do have great faith in him, I have believed in him from day one...lets face it, no one can screw up anymore than Bush has done for the past 8 years. We all need to be calm and not start making rash judgments on what he will or won't do....give the man a chance to be sworn in first. I think we are in for an exciting time in the next 4 to 8 years with Obama in charge....change that is long overdue!!

    Posted by Caj at 11/16/2008 @ 6:46pm

69. I am very concerned that Wall Street peopleare being considered for this post. Let me throw a person whom I believe have individuals not corporations as part of her world view. She is in constant battle with Paulson and Bush. Her name is Sheila Baird. She is currently head of the FDIC, a woman, and a Republican. Reaching across the isle.

    Read my article on John Dingell and his removal on Freedompost. www.freedompost.typepad.com

    Martin S. Friedlander, Esq

    Posted by msf31538 at 11/16/2008 @ 7:23pm

70. Wasn't Baird's name bantied around some or am I just crazy? I thought she was in the mix somewhere.

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 8:29pm

71. On 60 Minutes, Obama just gave us the word.

    "... no new New Deal."

    Could you hear the sigh of relief rising from Wall St?

    Or was it drowned out by the groans from everywhere else ...

    Same old, same old ... just a different style.

    The fix looks in, yet again.

    Posted by sloper at 11/16/2008 @ 8:36pm

72. Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 8:29pm

    I think he meant Bair, not Baird.

    Not very familiar with her, pro or con, but at least she never worked for any of the companies she'd be bailing out.

    And, as far as I could tell, by googling her, she never worked for any administration to help deregulate. Solid resume and education.

    Sounds like the best suggestion so far.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/16/2008 @ 9:25pm

73. Not to be confused with Zoe Baird who was a SCOTUS pick under Clinton with illegal hiring issues (how amazingly prescient!). But yeah, she seems to be one of the calming voices in the storm. Any info as to who appointed her?

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 9:46pm

74. Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 9:46pm

    "Any info as to who appointed her?"

    I didn't know, so I googled.

    Hope you like irony.

    Bush.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/16/2008 @ 9:49pm

75. All of this time going by and all this handwringing!

    So who is your dream Secretary of State?? Who has a real shot at bringing about a Palestine in our $!@&*%@# lifetime?

    I'm thinking the Billary has some big positives. Interesting -- get her out of here! Don't need her for Energy, taxes, anything domestic and might be good to have her focus abroad. She is liked by hawks and doves pretty evenly. See how she does. Obama can "rumsfeld" her butt if need be, giving a poor international situation (Afghanistan) in 2011 a hndy scapegoat Restart with 'his own person, no Clintonite'... still enabling him a win in 2012.

    She and Bill are generally seen as pre-Bush good America, with more gravitas than a dozen 'pure' picks.

    Posted by winyahn at 11/16/2008 @ 10:25pm

76. PLUS! She sooooooo wants to be pres. Good deeds as SS and she gets the ball in 2016, and my vote.

    Posted by winyahn at 11/16/2008 @ 10:39pm

77. *Bush.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/16/2008 @ 9:49pm*

    I keep thinking of blind squirrels and nuts...

    It would be an absolute shame if the taint of Bush keeps some otherwise competent folks from positions in future administrations. She seems to have a fairly decent grip on monetary policy plus she's rather familiar with the bailout working closely with Paulson. Maybe we could throw some subtle hints towards our President-elect?

    (Oh yeah, this might get NOW off his back too.)

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 10:58pm

78. Couple of typos. "Put Corzine ON the list." and, no close quotes, same sentence.

    Please fix. MnyTnxIA.*

    Corzine, a very wealthy former Goldman-Sachs chairman and co-CEO, might have seemed like an unlikely economic populist. But he soon made the senator from Minnesota a believer. Indeed, when we were sitting in his office one afternoon in 2001, talking about the senators who could be counted on to stand up to the new Bush-Cheney administration, Wellstone said, "Put Corzine of the list. He's going to surprise people.

    #9

    ---------- * TIA for "thanks in advance" has now been permanently spoiled by Vice-Admiral (does that mean he was in charge of Opn. TailHook?) John M. "FormerlyAFelon" Poindexter's little "Total Information Awareness" PROMIS database--or whatever it is now (and where it's hidden, of course). I think it morphed into Terrorist Information Awareness, and then maybe Trustfund Indigent Awareness.

    And then the BBC, in Masterpiece Contemporary, had to go 'n appropriate the name and the concept of TIA in "The Last Enemy," a 5-parter that almost out-Orwelled Orwell. (Nano-technology hadn't gotten even close to the scene before he died in 1950. But he sure pegged "the watching TV" ('cept that it's the watching computer, with the micro-videocam in the bezel.)

    PS: But does our economy have to be run by Goldman Sachs? Personally, I'd love to see what Ron Paul could do with that position. Or Ralph Nader. Or Dennis Kucinich.

    Hell, even Paul Krugman. That'd give us two Princeton Profs to mix it up with all the Yalies and Harvies.

    Posted by The9th at 11/17/2008 @ 02:46am

79. (Oh yeah, this might get NOW off his back too.)

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 10:58pm

    Woman.

    Republican.

    Bush nominee.

    Seemingly competent/non complicit.

    "Obama the maverick"

    (He'd have to be. Nobody in Washington seems to want to be branded by competence.)

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 03:27am

80. The very first sentence sets this up as a joke. Who the hell is happy that Hillary the hawk would bump out more qualified and deserving choices like Richardson?

    As for Corzine, obviously the author doesn't live in NJ. Just ask the CWA how he screwed up the pension program royally.

    Starting to slip lately, Nichols.

    Posted by Lil at 11/17/2008 @ 08:30am

81. "Krugman? Academics are fine in the classroom. And that's were they need to stay. If they could deal with reality they wouldn't be academics in the first place."

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/17/2008 @ 08:33am

    Didn't like school, did we Darin? Did the smart kids pick on you?

    Not a defense of Krugman, per se. But, are you implying that;

    1.) Academics are stupider than lesser educated people. Even people in said industry?

    2.) People in said industry haven't, so far, regulated in their personal interests, not the country's.(this is a governmental position, not a company position.)

    Why are we comparing minimal differences in education/experience, when the field seems to be split between folks who are culpable for or profited from (and stand to profit more from) this fiasco. Vs. folks who are not culpable and only stand possible to gain in the future.

    Cuts the field right in two, if you ask me.

    Who's not facing reality here, Darin?

    Academic, schmackademic.

    Heckofajobthere, Darin.

    Vote for Eric to clean your yard! Who could be more qualified? Who do you think threw all that shit into your yard anyway? Pretty sure I remember where I threw most of it. Vote Eric!

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 2:18pm

82. "So you would support Sarah Palin?"

    Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 11/17/2008 @ 08:36am

    OK. Now you're just being stupid.

    Fine, in my educational standards, I forgot to mention an IQ over 80. Maybe we include that you weren't at the very bottom of your graduating class too. That'd be REALLY nice.

    They elephant in the room, of course, is that we are giving away our grandchildrens future, to a bunch of fascist wanna-be's, who will line their pockets, use the proceeds to buy each other out and not lend a bit of it.

    Same with the auto industry. I hear of no plans to ensure production is kept in this country.

    The right and left scream "the gov'ts buying industry, it's socialism.", t with varying degrees of excitement.

    But, no... industry has bought our government, it's fascism.

    Let's at least put the "govt" in charge, not industry.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 2:33pm

83. And now he stares into the void without a clue, with a fishing line into the putrescence, smelling the vapor.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 12:57pm

    You should write fiction. That line sounds like the last line in the last chapter of a pulp detective novel.

    As I predicted earlier Obama will in the opinion of many be a "Failed President" even before his inauguration.

    Funny stuff.

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/17/2008 @ 2:53pm

84. November 17, 2008, 11:39 am Goldman Bonuses: The Neutron Bomb of Wall Street Posted by Heidi N. Moore - WSJ

    Excerpt:

    'Goldman Sachs has always been considered the leader in investment banking, so it's no surprise that the firm felt the need to apologize on behalf of the entire industry for creating the current crisis.

    "While the firm has distinguished itself through many aspects of the crisis, we cannot ignore the fact that we are part of an industry that is directly associated with the ongoing economic distress," a spokesman for the firm told our colleague, Sue Craig, as he confirmed that Goldman's top executives will get only their base salaries of $600,000, with no bonuses this year."

    Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 3:41pm