Steve Forbes: Paulson is 'worst' treasury secretary in modern times

[Maikeru-sama]

November 24, 2008
Forbes: Paulson is 'worst' treasury secretary in modern times
Posted: 05:41 AM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Forbes magazine President and CEO Steve Forbes called Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson “the worst treasury secretary we’ve had in modern times”, citing, among other things, the government’s handling of the housing crisis.

In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Sunday, Forbes repeatedly called on the treasury secretary to be more straightforward about the money used to bail out mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“Have Henry Paulson do at least one thing right, and that is, have the government explicitly guarantee the debt of Fannie and Freddie,” the financial mogul and former Republican presidential candidate said.

When asked if he has confidence in Paulson, Forbes responded “No, sadly, Wolf. He's about the worst treasury secretary we've had in modern times.”

The Treasury Department had no comment on Forbes’ remark, but in a speech on Thursday, Paulson said that the administration’s proactive response to the troubled economy “prevented a far worse financial crisis.”

Bill Clinton’s former labor secretary Robert Reich was slightly less blunt than Forbes, but equally uncertain on Paulson’s ability to turn around the economy.

“I think that the great bailout that he engineered was really sold to Congress on false pretenses,” Reich said on Late Edition. “Paulson has not been very transparent. He's been very opaque. And it has riled markets.”

link (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/24/forbes-paulson-is-worst-treasury-secretary-in-modern-times-2/?eref=politicalflipper)

[Sasquatch]

He's been receiving a lot of bad press lately, especially with respect to his erratic handling of the whole crisis and the inconsistency of his messages which have had the opposite effect of restoring confidence. The emerging consensus seems to be that the administration's ad hoc approach has definitely worsened the situation because no one really knows what the plan is.

[iceberg]

He's been receiving a lot of bad press lately, especially with respect to his erratic handling of the whole crisis and the inconsistency of his messages which have had the opposite effect of restoring confidence. The emerging consensus seems to be that the administration's ad hoc approach has definitely worsened the situation because no one really knows what the plan is.

i don't know much about him so all i can do is read and take it in. but so far no, not anything good on the endorsement front. will be interesting to hear other "money" people talk in the coming weeks about the choice.

[theogt]

Well, I'm glad he gave a reason for his inflammatory statement...oh wait.

[theogt]

He's been receiving a lot of bad press lately, especially with respect to his erratic handling of the whole crisis and the inconsistency of his messages which have had the opposite effect of restoring confidence. The emerging consensus seems to be that the administration's ad hoc approach has definitely worsened the situation because no one really knows what the plan is.Unfortunately, the ad hoc nature was necessary until Lehman failed, because before then there was no appetite for a systemic massive bailout. Heck, even after Lehman there wasn't much appetite for one politically. You still have people *****ing about the bailout.

[Sasquatch]

Unfortunately, the ad hoc nature was necessary until Lehman failed, because before then there was no appetite for a systemic massive bailout. Heck, even after Lehman there wasn't much appetite for one politically. You still have people *****ing about the bailout.

The particular person that I heard rip into Paulson last week was not only critical of the failure of Lehman and Wamu, the handling of which, he claimed, made creditors less likely to lend banks money, also but also Treasury's change of heart on purchasing "toxic assets" and the lack of movement on the mortgage front. This guy also said that the administration was virtually abdicating responsibility for the crisis and passing it on to the incoming administration, but I did not hear on what basis he was making that claim, perhaps because they're not planning on using the rest of the money (350 billion or so)? I believe the fellow was the financial/business reporter for the NYTimes but I'm not sure.

[theogt]

The particular person that I heard rip into Paulson last week was not only critical of the failure of Lehman and Wamu, the handling of which, he claimed, made creditors less likely to lend banks money, also but Treasury's change of heart on purchasing "toxic assets" and the lack of movement on the mortgage front. This guy also said that the administration was virtually abdicating responsibility for the crisis and passing it on to the incoming administration, but I didn't not hear on what basis he was making that claim, perhaps because they're not planning on using the rest of the money (350 billion or so)? I believe the fellow was the financial/business reporter for the NYTimes but I'm not sure.The switch from purchasing assets to investing directly was the right decision, plain and simple. Just about everyone agreed with it at the time and just about everyone agrees with it now. Also, Congress knew of the change before approved the bill and threw in some language on the record just to clarify that it approved the change. So that is not a valid criticism.

As for Lehman, yeah, that's a touchy subject. Who knows what would have happened if they'd propped it up. Maybe things would have continued spiralling downward and we'd eventually have been in the same place we are now. But I do know the bailout bill would not have passed as quickly as it did without Lehman falling and the crisis would not have been fixed without the bailout bill, so take that as you will.

[Sasquatch]

They guy is Joe Nocera who appeared on Bill Moyers's Journal on Friday.

Here is the video (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11212008/watch.html).

Here is the transcript (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11212008/transcript1.html).

As I may have misrepresented his position and criticism of Paulson it might be worth checking it out. I'll watch it again at some point since I was preoccupied a bit when it was originally aired.

[Aikbach]

Paulson supposedly mimicked Gordon Brown's actions in Britain.

[burmafrd]

Sasqie you really need to realize that trying to debate OGT on this is like any of us trying to de bate ADAMJT13 on the salary cap. You will get owned.

[ThaBigP]

The switch from purchasing assets to investing directly was the right decision, plain and simple. Just about everyone agreed with it at the time and just about everyone agrees with it now. Also, Congress knew of the change before approved the bill and threw in some language on the record just to clarify that it approved the change. So that is not a valid criticism.

As for Lehman, yeah, that's a touchy subject. Who knows what would have happened if they'd propped it up. Maybe things would have continued spiralling downward and we'd eventually have been in the same place we are now. But I do know the bailout bill would not have passed as quickly as it did without Lehman falling and the crisis would not have been fixed without the bailout bill, so take that as you will.

For God's sake man, make up your mind. You run around hollering "ME TOO!!!!!" as loud as you can after-the-fact. We had a back-and-forth a while back where you claimed I was an idiot for daring to suggest that the bailout would be redirected to buy stakes in banks, etc. And at that time, you seemed to think it would have been a silly move on the part of the Treas. to do that. Now you can't get enough.

[masomenos]

Sasqie you really need to realize that trying to debate OGT on this is like any of us trying to de bate ADAMJT13 on the salary cap. You will get owned.

Hey, quit it! Promoting Theo is what I do! :laugh2: