Genedio: I'm beginning to suspect that you lack a populism gene, Leroy. Robert Rubin is a Wall Street plutocrat, is he not? So he has the right position on deficits, and perhaps, taxes. That's only one part of the equation.

LeRoy: I think you can rich without being a plutocrat. Would you not describe John Edwards as a populist? Mr. Edwards is rather wealthy. For that matter, I think FDR was certainly no pauper. Would you have voted against FDR on the grounds that he was too wealthy to be a real 'man of the people'?!? Offhand, I would say having "the right position on deficits and...taxes" is the central requirement for our politicians today. If we don't get that right, we get nothing righted in the ship of state. I think that Rubin does have that certain 'plutocratic bearing': he looks like a Wall Street wheeler-dealer. The fact remains that he pushed Clinton in the right direction in regards to economic policy. Deficit reduction was the key to the widespread economic prosperity of the second Clinton term, and Rubin understood that it had to be achieved gradually, as opposed to the wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am approach favored by Ross Perot, which I think would have been disastrous.

Genedio: I think you're hoping that Obama can perform another Clintonian miracle with the economy, but Clinton took a lot of time to become popular (his first term was mostly spent with a below 50% approval rating), and one of the reasons may have been his green eyeshades approach--which paid off in the end, but frustrated some in the 1992-5 period, which saw pretty weak growth.

LeRoy: No, I'm not expecting another 'Clintonian miracle' with the economy. I think we are now in far too serious of a situation for that to be a realistic hope. The economic situation in 2008 is far more drastic than it was in 1992. I am aware that Clinton was pretty unpopular in his first term: it is what led to the Gingrich 'Contract with America' Republican sweep in the midterm elections of 1994. Could the same happen to Obama? It might! He is going to have to do some pretty unpopular things if he is really going to turn things around: he might not get a second term! As I hope I have been implying, I really do not know what Clinton/Rubin could have done to achieve better growth in the 1992-1995 period, without damaging the longer-run prospects for growth. I think they had it right: slow but patient deficit reduction. We are probably lucky the Republicans couldn't find a better standard-bearer than Bob Dole in 1996.

Genedio: Clinton was perceived as being more concerned with bailing out Mexico and righting Haiti's government (in 1994) than getting the economic recovery going.

LeRoy: Don't know that we have discussed this before, but I think 'bailing out Mexico' was the right thing to do. Had we not done it, I cannot of course predict with any high accuracy what would have happened, but I suspect things would have turned out much worse than they have. And, for that matter, I approved of Clinton helping to basically overthrow the military junta that was ruling Haiti at the time; they were a disaster on our doorstep. I am left wondering what you think Clinton should have been doing during 1992-1995 to 'get the economic recovery going'; would you care to elaborate?

I like your idea of exempting the first $1000 of interest income from taxes. I would be inclined to make it more like the first $2000 or even $3000. As you say, we must provide working-class Americans with more of an incentive to save.

Just because I like and even admire Robert Rubin for what he did as Clinton's Treasury Secretary does not mean that I 'lack a populism gene', Genedio! I don't think I would have been a John Edwards supporter for most of the Democratic primaries (until he dropped out), if I was an 'anti-populist'.

Sovereign thinks I am an anti-populist, I suppose, because I insist that Joe Sixpack needs to get himself a better education and start thinking more in terms of the long run.