>today's papers
>
>By Scott Shuger
>
>...The fronts at the NYT, the LAT, the WP, and the WSJ [big US papers] all
give plenty of space to the surprise resignation announcement yesterday by
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. The papers say that any extended period of
concern in the financial markets about lack of Treasury leadership was
checked by President Clinton's immediate statement that he would nominate
Treasury's #2, Lawrence Summers, for the top spot. The Rubin coverage is
pretty hagiographic. Rubin's departure, opines the WP, "deprives the
administration of one of its most influential and respected figures," a
person "whose steely stewardship of U.S. economic policy commanded
admiration on both Wall Street and Capitol Hill." The coverage that best
breaks through the back-patting is the NYT's, which high up states that
many in Asia felt that Rubin's formula of conditioning IMF loans on high
interest rates and government spending cuts led to high unemployment and
more severe recessions. The NYT and LAT also explain best that inside the
administration, Rubin led the budget-balancers against the social program
spenders, a debate that the NYT says he "ultimately won."....
>The NYT runs a Reuters dispatch reporting on a first-of-its kind
internet-related government crisis. Officials of the British government
were in flail mode yesterday trying to shut down a U.S.-based web site that
apparently has posted names of dozens of British intelligence agents. The
British government appealed to British media outlets not to publish the
site's address. <
gee, what's that address?
>The WP and NYT report that at the eleventh hour, NBC has laundered the
term "nuclear waste" out of this weekend's made-for-TV-movie "Atomic
Train." NBC is owned by General Electric, which has holdings in the nuclear
power industry....<
-----------------------------------
>international papers
>
>Let's Blame Bill
>
>By Alexander Chancellor
>
>The frustration of the bellicose British press at the half-hearted pursuit
of the war in Kosovo vented itself Wednesday in an editorial in the Times
attacking President Clinton, who, it said, has "proved his absolute
inadequacy as a Commander-in-Chief, stumbling on a stage that is bigger
than his talents can match and performing with hesitancy, frailty and
fear." It added, "[T]his war will not be serious until Mr Clinton listens
to the Pentagon, rather than the latest opinion poll. He has never
countenanced a campaign plan; and in the absence of one, even air power has
been misapplied. ... Mr Clinton has retreated into the semantic ambiguities
for which his presidency has become infamous." The editorial concluded that
"[f]or Nato, for European peace and for Britain, the true, high reckoning
begins: it is called failure."
>The Daily Telegraph led its front page Wednesday with a report that both
Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were struggling "to hold back
a growing tide of criticism of their leadership of the Kosovo conflict."
Along with other papers, the Telegraph reported cracks in British
bipartisan support for the NATO offensive. In an article in the Telegraph,
the Conservative Party spokesman on foreign affairs, Michael Howard, called
for the establishment of a committee of inquiry into the war and the
"diplomatic failures" that preceded it. Howard described the bombing of the
Chinese Embassy in Belgrade as "an act of gross incompetence." He said, "To
use outdated street maps for an operation of this kind beggars belief."
>The liberal Guardian led Wednesday on "gloom" in NATO as China and Russia
hardened their demands for a halt to airstrikes before they will agree to
support peace moves in the United Nations. Having consistently urged the
use of ground forces, the paper finally recognized in an editorial that
"the possibility of a ground attack has dwindled." It said that the British
and the French have been willing to do their bit but that Clinton "could
not muster the will, or lacks the necessary political weight, to commit the
United States to ground action." The central issue now, it said, is that
"NATO forces, acting for the Kosovo Albanians, must have preponderant
physical power on the ground, whatever the formalities of status may be."
The liberal Independent's front-page lead spoke of "an unmistakable whiff
of panic and confusion in the West's councils of war."
>There was gloom on the continent as well. Le Monde of Paris led its front
page Wednesday with the headline "Kosovo emptied of half its population"
and said in an editorial that President Slobodan Milosevic knows--"because
we have been at pains to tell him"--that he need not fear a land offensive,
and he knows the limits of the air bombardments. "He can, at his leisure,
test the unity and determination of the allies," it added. "One way or
another, it is always he who holds the cards." On Tuesday, the Greek daily
Ta Nea published a leaked NATO document warning that Albania, Montenegro,
and Macedonia are in imminent danger of economic and political collapse
because of the Kosovo crisis. The displacement of nearly 600,000 Kosovar
refugees threatens to destabilize the entire region, it said. The
"restricted" memo, dated April 29, was reported to have been sent by NATO
Secretary-General Javier Solana to the alliance's 19 member states last
week....<
>Le Monde ran a front-page article about unexpected difficulties facing the
new single European currency, the euro. It said the European Central Bank
has a major problem creating a consistent monetary policy because of
growing economic disparities among the countries of "Euroland." It said,
"While some Euroland countries are enjoying American-style growth, others
are on the brink of recession."... <
-----------------------------------------
>strange bedfellow
>Was Bob a God?: In search for Robert Rubin's flaws.
>By David Plotz
>Americans--at least those who own stock--have not only endorsed the
infallibility of the markets, they have also endorsed the infallibility of
the people who watch over those markets. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan was long ago elevated to divinity. And Treasury Secretary Robert
Rubin, who announced his resignation today, has joined Greenspan in the
pantheon of Money Gods. (There are no atheists in bull markets.)
>For the past few years, but especially since rumors of his departure began
circulating this spring, Rubin has been bathing in media slobber. He has
been credited with eliminating the deficit, captaining the U.S. economy
through seven fat years, vanquishing the Asian financial crisis,
transmuting base metals into golds, and generally doing eight impossible
things before breakfast.
>Does Rubin deserve this sanctification? Is there, in fact, anything wrong
with Bob?
>As with Greenspan, Rubin's godliness rests on a foundation of genuine
accomplishment. In 1993, Rubin was one of several Clinton advisers who
urged deficit reduction rather than economic stimulus. This tightfistedness
set the table for the current boom, leading to low interest rates, job
growth, the Wall Street explosion, etc. Since then, Rubin's cautious advice
has helped ensure that the administration did nothing to screw up the
prosperity. Rubin lobbied for NAFTA and GATT. His friendly relations with
Greenspan--a dramatic contrast to the Bush administration's squabbling with
the Fed--has soothed bankers and investors. His deft manipulation of the
debt ceiling during the 1995-96 government shutdown prevented a U.S.
default and guaranteed that the political war between the president and the
Republican Congress would not derail the thriving economy.
>And as a conservative Wall Street veteran in a White House of Democratic
political operatives, Rubin brought market credibility to the Clinton
administration, reassuring the New York money folks that Washington would
not go loopy on them. Perhaps the most compelling evidence of Rubin's
accomplishment may be, perversely, Wall Street's yawn at his resignation.
The Dow dropped more than 200 points on the news, then gained most of it
back within the hour. This is testament to Wall Street's faith that Rubin
has been so successful that the White House won't dare change his
pro-market policies.
>But Rubin's deification is not simply the result of having done a good
job. Who hasn't done a good job during the past few years? His reputation
depends on style as much as substance. In a Republican administration,
Rubin would be another gray suit, another dull rich guy moonlighting as a
politician. But Rubin has been blessed with a boss and colleagues who make
him look good by comparison. Clinton is emotional, loud, chaotic, horny,
and enveloped by Monica sleaze.Rubin is ascetic, controlled, rational,
quiet, and untouched by any of the zillion Clinton scandals. During Flytrap
and since, Rubin's chilliness has been a welcome adult relief from the
childish president.
>In a more democratic Democratic administration, Rubin's wealth--estimated
at $125 million or more--would have made him suspect. But among the
Clintonians, it has burnished him. He seems the Cincinnatus of Washington:
Unlike the political types around him, he has proved himself in another
arena. He doesn't need the power and prestige of Washington and feels no
compulsion to claw his way up. This is rare among D.C. pols. Having been
assigned the role of the Amateur Politician, Rubin seems pure next to the
sleazy pros. (He is not, of course, an amateur. See the sidebar note at the
end of the article.)
>Rubin has another rare quality. He does not seek press coverage, and when
he is covered, he speaks with blandness in order not to make news. This
silence impresses those who cover him: Compare the media's worshipful
treatment of Rubin with its scorn of publicity-seekers such as Housing
Secretary Andrew Cuomo or Treasury Secretary-designate Larry Summers,
Rubin's longtime deputy. Rubin's reticence, as well as his praise of
underlings and colleagues, has earned him an enormous, though not fully
deserved, reputation for humility. "This humility stuff is nonsense," says
a former White House colleague of Rubin's. "He does not need to elbow
others out of the way and brag, but it's not because he's humble. It's
because he is totally confident."
>Rubin subtly enhances his own reputation for perfection by talking
frequently about his imperfections. In interviews, he repeatedly emphasizes
the uncertainty of his job. He describes to reporters how he focuses on
weighing and reweighing percentages until he makes the best possible
decision in ambiguous circumstances. This is a fine way to make decisions,
as Rubin has proved, but it is an equally good way to protect your image.
If a decision turns out well, it's because you calculated it would. If it
turns out badly, it's not your fault: You made the most rational choice you
could.
>Rubin agnostics will be glad to learn that there are two weak spots in his
record. He arrived in Washington as a supposed champion of the poor. He was
expected to use his position as head of the National Economic Council and
later as treasury secretary to redirect federal resources toward inner
cities and the underclass. But Rubin's cautiousness has got the better of
him. Although he strongly disagreed with the welfare reform bill, he didn't
battle hard to prevent Clinton from signing it. And instead of lobbying for
large-scale anti-poverty or urban revival programs, Rubin settled for
mini-government: small efforts to prod banks to extend credit in troubled
neighborhoods, micro-loan programs to encourage entrepreneurship among the
poor. In Rubin's defense, his stewardship of the economy has done more to
help the poor than any federal grant program could have.
>The secretary has also been excessively obeisant to Wall Street. Though
Rubin has bucked Wall Street by opposing a capital-gains tax cut, he comes
from Wall Street, and most of his closest friends and advisers are Wall
Streeters, and he generally heeds the street. During the global financial
crisis, Rubin has halfheartedly warned Americans not to invest cavalierly
in weak foreign economies, but anytime foolhardy American investors have
been threatened, Rubin has rushed to save them. During the Asia, Russia,
and Brazil crises, Rubin constructed bailout deals that benefited outside
creditors above all. He insists he was not trying to help Wall Street.
According to Rubin's logic, safeguarding investors in these troubled
economies prevents contagion from spreading. If American investors thought
they were going to lose the billions they had unwisely put in Korea, they
might pull out of Latin America, Eastern Europe, or the rest of Asia.
>But many economists, especially non-Americans, complain that Rubin has
been far too obliging toward his old colleagues and indifferent to the poor
Russians and bankrupted Koreans damaged by his decisions. (After all, when
Wall Streeters say today that the Asia crisis is "over," what they mean is
that American exposure is over. The economies of Asia are still a mess.)
Rubin's relief for Americans has encouraged a "moral hazard"--an inducement
for people to speculate excessively because they know the United States
will rescue them.
>The regulatory capture of Rubin by Wall Street has not only benefited Wall
Street, it has also polished Rubin's reputation. When Rubin makes decisions
that aid Wall Street, analysts and traders reciprocate in the financial
media, telling CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, et al., just how
wise the good secretary is. Rubin himself probably does not care about such
back scratching, but it is a lesson that heir-apparent Summers, an eager
press hound, has surely absorbed. Be nice to Wall Street, and perhaps you
can be a money god, too.
>Sidebar Note
>Rubin's work on Social Security reform has demonstrated his comfort with
the everyday politics of compromise and spin. Rubin is skeptical about
government investment of Social Security funds in private markets and
fought it during the administration's internal debates. The president's
plan endorses massive government investment in Wall Street. Rubin, a loyal
soldier, has emerged as one of the administration's top spokesmen for the
plan and doesn't talk about his objections to it.<
copyright 1999 Microsoft.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia now!
