by Gene BarnesProfessor Emeritus of Physics
California State University
Former U.S. President Harry S. Truman was reported to have had a sign on his desk reading: “The Buck Stops Here.”. The sign was intended to mean that he—as the top executive in the U.S. Government—was willing to take the final responsibility for the decisions made by his administration.
Today, at the highest levels of our government and of our industrial and financial corporate enterprises, almost no one is willing to accept any responsibility for anything. Passing the buck has become our national pastime, instead of baseball. I believe that passing the buck is truly bi-partisan, practiced by both Republicans and Democrats alike. Let’s look at some of the evidence of this during the last decade or so.
In 2000, George W. Bush was elected President. After the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the responsibility for the attack was attributed to al- Qaeda on the basis of intelligence reports gathered from the CIA and the FBI. As it turned out, quite a lot of the information concerning the conspirators had been obtained prior to 9/11, but it had never been taken seriously enough by the senior officials in these organizations. Even when information on the possibility of “attacks involving airplanes” was given to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by Security Advisor Richard Clarke, she chose not to pay much attention. On the day of the attack, President Bush had no immediate response, preferring to finish reading a story to school children. The order to scramble U.S. fighter jets was not given until it was too late to stop even the second plane from hitting the other twin tower nearly an hour later. To my knowledge, none of the members of the Bush administration have accepted any responsibility for their failures to provide an adequate defensive response to these attacks. For example, George Tenet, who was the Head of the CIA from 1997 until Robert Mueller’s confirmation 7 days before 9/11, never accepted the responsibility for the mismanagement of the information by his agency. Later, President Bush awarded the Medal of Freedom to him.
In contrast, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in1941, hearings were held to establish the responsibility for the inadequate defense of the Naval Base. Some of the senior Navy officers in command were reduced in rank as a result. Historians still argue as to whether President Roosevelt himself could (or should) have foreseen the possibility of an attack and strengthened the Pearl Harbor defenses. He was, after all, a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
Fast-forward to the financial crisis of 2007-2010, resulting in the bailout. A recent editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled, “Why did the economy sink?” describes the verdict of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s 545-page report on the causes of the crisis. Apparently, this bi-partisan Report dealt rather heavily in generalizations, rather than specific accusations of individual misconduct—an ideal way to pass the buck. Phrases such as “the crisis was the result of human action and inaction,” and the Chronicle’s suggestion that “plenty of smart people did stupid things” are not very enlightening. One of those so-called “smart people” was probably Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board under both President Clinton and President Bush. But when Greenspan testified before Congress, he seemed confused and not especially intelligent. He didn’t seem to understand the simple fact that self-regulation in government or industry does not work, and has never worked, something that really can be learned in kindergarten, if you are paying attention. Still, he managed to pass the buck. Apparently, however, this was a lesson that President Clinton had also failed to learn, because he signed the Gramm Leach Bliley Act in 1999, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. According to Wikipedia, this repeal “removed the separation that had previously existed between the Wall Street investment banks and the depository banks and may have caused the collapse of the subprime mortgage market that led to the financial collapse of 2007-2010.” Neither President Clinton nor President Bush have assumed any responsibility for the financial crisis, to my knowledge.
Among the many other Wall Street investment ploys that contributed to the crisis was the now-infamous Credit Default Swap. Basically, to create a CDS, you sell an investment to a buyer who can insure the investment so that if it fails the insurance will pay him a certain par value. However, this insurance (the CDS) is not subject to the same regulations as casualty or life insurance, and can be traded or sold to someone else. Thus, you can buy insurance on someone else’s investment that seems likely to fail—such as a mortgage loan to someone who can’t afford to keep up the payments. You might wonder who would be foolish enough to insure something like that. AIG would, if you were careful enough to pay the investment rating services such a Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s to give it a AAA rating. Most of the largest banks and investment firms in America sold the packaged mortgages all over the world, and profited from their demise—until AIG ran out of money and had to be bailed out. None of the CEOs of these banks have been charged with criminal misconduct, though a few have resigned—with golden parachutes. One of these firms, Goldman Sachs, seems to have done especially well. President Obama appointed Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and Ben Bernanke—all former “smart people” from Goldman Sachs—to top economic posts in his administration. They all passed the buck, with the help of President Obama.
This is a very long blog already, so I’ll stop here—even though I haven’t mentioned Monica Lewinski, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Torture, or Healthcare. I’m sure that the leaders of other countries are also very good at passing the Buck, or the Franc, or the Deutsche Mark, etc. Why not send some of your own favorite examples. I welcome both Liberal and Conservative contributions, though I reserve the right not to respond unless it seems worthwhile. leave comment here
10 comments:
Very interesting article.The terrible thing is that we appoint officials to deal with these matters and when they fail, there seems to be little that we can do.Most normal citizens are as aware as you are that we are badly served by our elected governments.I am in the Uk and we have now caught up with the USA,in that we now have people in full time employment being fed by church groups.
The biggest crook of them all is Dick Cheney. He is responsible for causing so much damage to this country, not to mention his mistaking a six-foot lawyer friend for a quail during a hunting trip.
To give just a few examples of what Cheney has done wrong and never taken responsibility for:
1) He endorsed horrific interrogation techniques like water boarding.
2) He exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
4) He fought efforts to clean up hazardous waste and backed tax breaks for energy corporations.
5) He repeatedly voted against funding for the Veterans Administration.
6) He opposed the release of Nelson Mandela from jail in South Africa.
7) As head of the Defense Department, he appointed “defense intellectuals” with no military experience into key posts at the Pentagon. People like Paul Wolfowitz, who masterminded the disastrous strategy that George W. Bush has pursued in Iraq.
8) As former CEO of Halliburton he made sure the company was awarded billions of dollars in contracts in Iraq.
9) As Vice President, Cheney was the main force in pushing America into war. He made sure to discredit anyone who opposed him, including Colin Powell.
Thanks for your comments on Dick Cheney, Anonymous. I particularly remember the Valerie Plame affair, where Cheney successfully passed the buck to Scooter Libby--and then (according to Bush)tried to get Bush to give Libby a complete pardon rather than just commuting his sentence. As I recall, Cheney never testified under oath about his involvement, claiming "executive privilege." Making an attack on someone's wife in order to get even with someone is about as low as you can go, in my opinion. He probably would receive mention, if anyone ever writes a book on "Profiles in Cowardice." If anyone out there knows of a defense for this kind of behavior, I'd be interested in hearing it.
While I don’t disagree with the overall thesis, the stated evidence leaves a lot to be desired:
1) Colin Powell was Secretary of State during 911, not Condoleezza Rice – she was National Security Advisor at the time.
2) George Tenet was Director of the CIA until 2004; Robert Mueller was never the Head of the CIA – he’s head of the FBI
3) The example of the post-Pearl Harbor attacks investigation is not a particularly effective example. Admiral Kimmel and General Short, who did not have access to a Purple deciphering machine or the Magic codes, were scapegoated and demoted after a show trial, while the politically popular MacArthur, who did have a Purple machine in the Philippines and who did not disperse his B17’s despite having a 12 hour warning, became a military hero and legend.
4) Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to strengthen financial regulations and publicly called for reform and regulation of Fannie and Freddie 17 times between 2003 and 2008,(see Bush’s “Decision Points” p 450-456).
5) Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and Ben Bernanke never worked for Goldman Sachs. Bernanke was Chairman of the Economics Department at Princeton prior to joining the Fed; Geithner’s career has been with the Fed, IMF, and Treasury; and Summers has been with Harvard and Treasury most of his career. However, Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary in the Bush Administration was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs.
6) Cheney never made an attack on Wilson’s wife (Plame). Cheney asked Libby to investigate why Wilson was claiming that Cheney had told the CIA to send Wilson to investigate Iraq’s efforts in Niger. It was Colin Powell’s Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage in the State Department that first told Robert Novak that Wilson’s wife Plame was responsible for initiating the Niger trip. Novak later got Rove to confirm that Plame had proposed Wilson for the trip, but neither Libby nor Rove was the original source. Libby was prosecuted for false statements concerning calls with other reporters that were never published.
Thank you for your comments, Anonymous. I am replying to them in the order that you gave them.
1)You are correct that Condoleeza Rice did not replace Colin Powell as Secretary of State until after 9/11. But of course, it was her job as National Security Advisor to pay attention to what Richard Clarke was saying--which was my point.
2)You are correct that Mueller was never Head of the CIA--because his appointment to head the FBI came only 5 days before 9/11, he should not bear any responsibility for the failures of the FBI in communicating information to the CIA. That was the point I was trying to make, though I had his agency wrong.
3)I agree with you that the actions taken to establish blame after Pearl Harbor were neither complete nor entirely justified, but my point was that, imperfect as they may have been, to have taken no action would have established the wrong precedent--which is what we are currently doing. (To be continued.)
Continuing my reply, Anonymous:
4)Tim Geithner was never an employee of Goldman Sachs, as you state, but Robert Rubin, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs is often referred to as his "mentor." Larry Summers was paid $135,000 by Goldman Sachs for a one-day visit in April, 2008, perhaps to share his "economics expertise." Ben Bernanke also did not work for Goldman Sachs--this association was due to a misunderstanding that occurred in a Congressional hearing.
6)I am fully aware of the history of Libby's involvement and prosecution in the Plame affair. I am of the opinion, however, that because Cheney was Vice President, neither Libby, Armitage, nor Rove would have taken the initative to play their parts without the consent and encouragement of Cheney. Having heard Wilson speak in public about this, I have no doubt he drew the same conclusion. Thus, I stand by my belief that Cheney intended to attack Wilson by "outing" Valerie as a secret operative, even though we shall probably never know for sure.
Anonymous,on re-reading my last comment I realized that my reply to your point 4) didn't get printed. So, here it is.
4)The Sarbanes-Oxley Act that Bush signed was a response to the Enron scandal and other such events. It was intended to encourage CEO's to accept responsibility for their company's financial statements in order to restore investor confidence (among other things.) Despite glowing reports of its success from the financial sector, investor confidence soon collapsed in the financial crisis of 2008. I do not buy the argument that "no one could have known" that would happen. S-O was too little, and too late. Bush and Alan Greenspan, his Chairman of the Federal Reserve bear a large share of the responsibility for this, I believe. The power of the banking lobby controls most of the House and the Senate--Sarbanes-Oxley was able to pass with nearly unanimous votes because the bankers got what they wanted--a pretty toothless bill.
Gene
I’m not sure of the point of your response. My original point was that your supporting evidence was full of errors. Your response seems to be “Yeah, I agree that my initial proposition was full of inaccuracies, but that doesn’t make any difference, it’s my opinion that counts”. Frankly, that doesn’t appear worthy of a PhD in Physics. Let me just comment on your response to my original points:
1) You agree you were wrong…then you make the argument that Rice should have listened to Clarke, but he gave her no ACTIONABLE intelligence (see Lawrence Wright’s “The Looming Tower”)
2) You agree you were wrong…then make an argument that indicates you are totally unaware of Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General Jamie Corelick’s “Wall of Separation” that kept the DOJ’s departments (including the FBI) from sharing information between the counterintelligence wings and the criminal investigation wings.
3) You seem to endorse the concept that show-trials where we convict the innocent are more important than doing nothing.
4) You implicitly agree you were wrong … that Bernanke, Summers, and Geithner were not employed by Goldman Sachs, but then try the old “guilt by association” trick by saying Geithner was mentored by Rubin and that Summers was paid to consult for one day.
5) You don’t even try to address.
6) You have no evidence to counter my claim but state that your opinion is based solely on what Joe Wilson says. If you haven’t read the English Butler report or the Senate Intelligence Committee Report were Wilson’s judgment is questioned, we’re worlds apart. Basically, it comes down to Wilson stating there was no evidence of Iraq getting Yellow Cake, and British and Italian intelligence stating that in 1999 Iraq trade delegations attempted to buy Yellow Cake. From most Americans’ perspective, the attempt was sufficient.
Frankly Gene, you and I both know that you wouldn’t have accepted a sophomoric response such as yours from any of your students.
Gene
I’m not sure of the point of your response. My original point was that your supporting evidence was full of errors. Your response seems to be “Yeah, I agree that my initial proposition was full of inaccuracies, but that doesn’t make any difference, it’s my opinion that counts”. Frankly, that doesn’t appear worthy of a PhD in Physics. Let me just comment on your response to my original points:
1) You agree you were wrong…then you make the argument that Rice should have listened to Clarke, but he gave her no ACTIONABLE intelligence (see Lawrence Wright’s “The Looming Tower”)
2) You agree you were wrong…then make an argument that indicates you are totally unaware of Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General Jamie Corelick’s “Wall of Separation” that kept the DOJ’s departments (including the FBI) from sharing information between the counterintelligence wings and the criminal investigation wings.
3) You seem to endorse the concept that show-trials where we convict the innocent are more important than doing nothing.
4) You implicitly agree you were wrong … that Bernanke, Summers, and Geithner were not employed by Goldman Sachs, but then try the old “guilt by association” trick by saying Geithner was mentored by Rubin and that Summers was paid to consult for one day.
5) You didn’t address Bush’s attempt to reform and regulate Fannie and Freddie.
6) You have no evidence to counter my claim but state that your opinion is based solely on what Joe Wilson says. If you haven’t read the English Butler report or the Senate Intelligence Committee Report were Wilson’s judgment is questioned, we’re worlds apart. Basically, it comes down to Wilson stating there was no evidence of Iraq getting Yellow Cake, and British and Italian intelligence stating that in 1999 Iraq trade delegations attempted to buy Yellow Cake. From most Americans’ perspective, the attempt was sufficient.
Frankly Gene, you and I both know that you wouldn’t have accepted a sophomoric response such as yours from any of your students.
Anonymous, it's clear that we have a difference of opinion on some of these issues. The point of my response was to show some respect for your research into these matters and for your own views, but I do not intend to reply in kind to personal attacks. My time can be better spent--and, I suspect, so can yours.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!