Six Questions for Robert Rubin

Six Questions for Robert Rubin

Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary and Citigroup executive,meets Wednesday with the House DemocraticCaucus to begin educating its new members on the politically correctway to think about the economy. “Fiscal responsibility” is his standardtheme and no doubt some freshmen will want to hear his views on tradeand globalization and other large concerns.

A political friend asked me: If you were in the room, what would youask? So I gave him a list of challenging questions. These might or mightnot get passed along to House members. It seems unlikely, in any case,that freshly-elected Democrats would be so impertinent to ask them ofthe party’s most esteemed economic authority.

1. Your central message is “fiscal responsibility”–balancing thefederal budget–but is it really a good idea to cut spending or, forthat matter, raise taxes now when the national economy is heading intorecession? Won’t that make things worse, withdrawing economic stimulusat the very moment when more may be needed?

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary and Citigroup executive,meets Wednesday with the House DemocraticCaucus to begin educating its new members on the politically correctway to think about the economy. “Fiscal responsibility” is his standardtheme and no doubt some freshmen will want to hear his views on tradeand globalization and other large concerns.

A political friend asked me: If you were in the room, what would youask? So I gave him a list of challenging questions. These might or mightnot get passed along to House members. It seems unlikely, in any case,that freshly-elected Democrats would be so impertinent to ask them ofthe party’s most esteemed economic authority.

1. Your central message is “fiscal responsibility”–balancing thefederal budget–but is it really a good idea to cut spending or, forthat matter, raise taxes now when the national economy is heading intorecession? Won’t that make things worse, withdrawing economic stimulusat the very moment when more may be needed?

2. On globalization, you told TheNation magazine last summer you don’t think the reform ideas of yourHamilton Project will halt the global convergence of wages that ispulling down wages and incomes in America. If that’s the reality,shouldn’t we be exploring stronger measures to reform the trading systemand defuse this explosive situation?

3. You blame our swollen trade deficits almost entirely on the nation’slow savings rate. Given that American families are up to their eyeballsin debt, how can you expect them to increase their savings? If that’sthe case, shouldn’t you just tell people the straight truth? Theirstandard of living is going to fall. There’s no way to avoid it, basedon your precriptions.

4. You suggest that balancing the federal budget will also reduce ourtrade deficits, but studies by the Federal Reserve and the IMF bothconclude the impact of fiscal balance is trivial. As the Clintonadministration balanced the federal budget in the late 1990s, the UStrade deficit was simultaneously exploding. Our current accounts deficitgrew from 1.6 percent to 4.2 percent of GDP–despite Clinton’s balancedbudget. Japan ran huge budget deficits throughout the 1990s, yet itshuge trade surpluses continued regardless. Given those facts, how canyou argue the opposite?

5. Why does the business-financial establishment insist on securingelaborate rules in trade agreements to protect the rights of capital andinvestors, but claims any rules to insure the rights of labor andworkers would be “protectionist” and mess up the system? Don’t we needrules for both labor and capital to create a stable, balanced tradingsystem?

6. Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and other leading financial houses aretaking major ownership positions in Chinese banks and financial firms.How does this color your advice to Congress on American economic policytoward China?

Are there other questions that might be asked? Register your comments below.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x