Financial Crisis Tab Already In The Trillions

Given the speed at which the federal government is throwing money at the financial crisis, the average taxpayer, never mind member of Congress, might not be faulted for losing track.

CNBC, however, has been paying very close attention and keeping a running tally of actual spending as well as the commitments involved.

Try $4.28 trillion dollars. That's $4,284,500,000,000 and more than what was spent on WW II, if adjusted for inflation, based on our computations from a variety of estimates and sources*.
Not only is it a astronomical amount of money, its' a complicated cocktail of budgeted dollars, actual spending, guarantees, loans, swaps and other market mechanisms by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and other offices of government taken over roughly the last year, based on government data and news releases. Strictly speaking, not every cent is a direct result of what's called the financial crisis, but it is arguably related to it.

Some 68-percent of the sum falls under the Federal Reserve's umbrella, while another 16 percent is the under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, as defined under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, signed into law in early October. (The TARP alone is bigger than virtually any other US government endeavor dating back to the Louisiana Purchase. See slideshow.)

"Financial Crisis Balance Sheet"

Government Entity Sum in Billions of Dollars Federal Reserve (TAF) Term Auction Facility 900 Discount Window Lending Commercial Banks 99.2 Investment Banks 56.7 Loans to buy ABCP 76.5 AIG 112.5 Bear Stearns 29.5 (TSLF) Term Securities Lending Facility 225 Swap Lines 613 (MMIFF) Money Market Investor Funding Facility 540 Commercial Paper Funding Facility 257 (TARP) Treasury Asset Relief Program 700 Other: Automakers 25 (FHA) Federal Housing Administration 300 Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac 350 Total 4284.5 Note: Figures as of Nov. 13, 2008

Hill Heavy Hitters Filling Obama’s West Wing Line-up

'Change' Candidate Nods to Experience
By Alec MacGillis, Washington Post Staff Writer ,Tuesday, November 18, 2008

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama liked to defend himself against charges of inexperience by calling for fresh perspective in Washington. "The American people . . . understand the real gamble is having the same old folks doing the same old things over and over and over again and somehow expecting a different result," he would say to big applause.
But as the president-elect's White House team takes shape, it is becoming clear that Obama in fact sees value in having plenty of the "same old folks" around to help him. After selecting as his chief of staff Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a House power broker and Clinton White House veteran, Obama over the weekend added several other top advisers with deep seasoning in Washington and on Capitol Hill in particular.
Although Obama has shown a fondness for surrounding himself with big thinkers and visionary experts, his White House hires suggest that his West Wing, at least, will place a premium on skilled legislative practitioners.
Congressional Democrats are taking the hires of Hill veterans as an encouraging sign that Obama -- the first member of Congress to be elected president since John F. Kennedy -- plans to work closely with them, which they regard as a welcome change from Bush's administration, which even many Hill Republicans said left them out of the loop.
The staff choices "represent a new era in cooperative relations between the White House and Congress," said Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.). "It bodes well for an extraordinary period of legislative accomplishment -- for creating an atmosphere in which legislative victories will be maximized."
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said the Hill expertise is particularly needed given the shaky economy. "It sends a very clear message . . . that he is ready to work with us from Day One," she said. "We need to get past the 'getting to know you' phase quickly, and this helps get that done."
But some veterans of Republican White Houses are asking how Obama's promise of a clean break with the past squares with his elevation of so many Washington insiders skilled in partisan warfare.
"This is more 'Groundhog Day' than a fresh start," said Peter Wehner, a former senior adviser to Bush who is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Wehner said he thinks Obama is trying to avoid the mistakes of the Clinton administration, which stumbled early on, but he warned against "overlearning history." "It's reassuring having people who have been around the block -- it means he'll step on fewer banana peels in the early going," he said. But "this just doesn't have the feel of a political transformation," he added.
Other veterans of GOP administrations said Obama could yet prove an agent of change -- on his own.
"The transformative part of his presidency is the president himself," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and supported Obama. "The most important voice for change is his. And change is accomplished in our system not by erasing all of the lines on paper but by having people who understand government's structure and so can reinforce lines that have been wrongfully distorted or broken in terms of separation of powers."
Obama adviser Anita Dunn made a similar case. "What you're seeing is the same kind of approach he took to his campaign -- some new people, some old people, like Goldilocks," she said. "What you see is someone who is not going to make some of the mistakes administrations have made in the past of not understanding how to get things done in Washington. People who say 'Where's the change?' need only look at the president of the United States . . . the person at the top who sets the tone and the priorities."
The latest hires include Pete Rouse, an understated but highly regarded Hill veteran who will be a senior adviser in the White House after 30 years on the Hill -- 19 working for Thomas A. Daschle, a former Senate Democratic leader, and four as Obama's chief of staff. Hired as deputy White House chiefs of staff are Mona Sutphen, who worked for a D.C. consulting firm after serving on Clinton's National Security Council, and Jim Messina, who was the Obama campaign's chief of staff after serving in the same capacity for Sen. Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is helping lead the way on health-care legislation.
Hired as Obama's top congressional liaison is Phil Schiliro, another highly regarded Hill veteran who in 25 years there served as Daschle's policy director and, most recently, as chief of staff to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Selected as White House counsel is Greg Craig, who served in the State Department under Clinton and acted as his counsel during his impeachment but broke with the Clintons to endorse Obama.
These experienced Washington hands will be joined by Obama's top confidants from Chicago -- David Axelrod, his chief campaign strategist, and Valerie Jarrett, a businesswoman and close family friend who is helping direct the transition alongside former Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta. She will serve as Obama's senior adviser and public liaison.
Several White House veterans said the mix represented a healthy combination of new blood and D.C. experience -- not unlike what Ronald Reagan brought in 1980, when he combined Washington hands such as James A. Baker III and Kenneth M. Duberstein with confidantes Edwin Meese III and Michael K. Deaver.
Obama, having collected relatively few loyalists during his rapid rise, has shown an eagerness to hire the best available people regardless of personal connections or ideology, the veterans said. The clearest example was his success persuading Rouse, who was looking for work after Daschle's 2004 defeat, to join the office of a freshman senator.
"Obama understands that in order to be an effective president, you need to win battles on Capitol Hill," said Duberstein, who was Reagan's chief of staff. "What he seems to be putting in place is a mixture of people who know how to get things done in Washington along with people who have known him for many years. That fits with what he has campaigned on . . . which is shrewdly bringing people together. It is all about putting together a pragmatic governing coalition and having the people on hand who know how to get things done."
Duberstein disagreed that Washington veterans undercut the change that the country voted for Nov. 4. "What the American people are saying is: 'Enough of the stalemate and gridlock. Get people in there who know what they are doing,' " he said.
Andrew H. Card Jr., President Bush's first chief of staff, praised Obama for filling so many White House jobs so quickly. But he warned that having so much Hill experience on the team could give it too much of a legislative mind-set.
"A member of Congress holds hearings and healthy debates before he makes a decision. A president doesn't have that luxury," he said. "He is required to make snap decisions. Members of Congress can be much more deliberative, where a president has to be decisive. If you're a senator, you're one-hundredth of one-half of a decision. When you're president, you're 100 percent of a decision. You have to be more nimble."
Leon Panetta, who was Clinton's chief of staff, dismissed this concern. "It doesn't take very long before you develop an executive mind-set. On Capitol Hill you usually have 535 different [bosses], and at the White House you only have one boss -- and you learn that real fast," he said. "I just look at it from the point of view of having people who can hit the ground running. With all the problems the country faces, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to have people who understand how Washington works."

.

What about Bill Clinton?

Aides and advisers to the Clintons feel comfortable that the vetting of Bill Clinton will not disqualify Hillary from becoming Secretary of State, and argue that the former president could be a tremendous asset both to his wife and Barack Obama in the future administration.

Nevertheless, there is a concern that critical media coverage could sour the Obama and Clinton camp's view of the arrangement and hurt Sen. Clinton's chances of ending up at the post.

In conversations on Monday, officials noted that Bill Clinton has long expected that much of his work during the past eight years would be opened to public scrutiny if his wife were to win the presidential election. Moreover, they added, the former president already had made a substantial share of his financial record public -- including every paid speech he has delivered since leaving the White House -- in accordance with congressional disclosure laws that impact his wife. But there still exists the possibility that a post-presidential arrangement, whether through Clinton's library or global initiative fund, could prove cosmetically problematic and spur enough of a media frenzy to scuttle things.

"The next two or three days will be critical," said one aide. Another figure close to the Clintons noted that they are focused on "trying to weather this storm... If they can limit [the press fallout] around Bill, she'll get the appointment."

Officials told the Huffington Post and other outlets last week that Obama had (informally) offered Clinton the post during their meeting in Chicago. Some subsequent media accounts stated that a formal offer had not yet been extended. But aides say that is a distinction without a difference: Clinton believes, based on her meeting with Obama, that the position is hers if she wants it; moreover, aides say, Obama's transition team would not have gone through with the vetting of the former president (nor would he have agreed to it) if the idea of Hillary at State wasn't crystal clear.

There is lingering concern over Bill Clinton. The Clinton Global Initiative has raised billions of dollars from many international financial and political entities. In addition, both he and Obama (and, on occasion, he and his wife) have had clear policy disagreements that could muddle the message of the next president.

But lost amidst these potential hurdles is another obvious element: Bill Clinton could also be, if tasked correctly, a tremendous asset to Obama, observers say. A renowned diplomat with perhaps the thickest rolodex of officials around the world, the former president could at once help amplify the White House message while serving as a friendly buffer should there be a fissure between Obama and another international leader.

Take, as a case study, negotiations over a Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Clinton has a clear interest in the passage of any such measure, having received $800,000 in speaking fees from an organization promoting the trade deal. In addition, he has spoken out in favor of the Bush administration's approach, contradicting not only Obama but his own wife.

However, Clinton could be a huge help for President Obama should he try to restructure such an arrangement with the Colombians, as seems likely. Clinton is close to President Uribe and has myriad connections to prominent government officials, business leaders, and aid groups in the country. Any fallout between Uribe and the Obama administration could be lessened by Clinton's diplomatic touch, as could frictions that accompany negotiating trade deals or other political arrangements.

"This is the very interesting flip side of the problem people are starting to talk about with Bill Clinton," said Paul Blustein, a trade expert at the Brookings Institute. "The ideal outcome with the Colombia FTA is that it gets renegotiated so that Obama can support it without it looking like he just made cosmetic changes. At the same time, it has to be done in a way that preserves Uribe's dignity... to make sure he can also save his face. And Bill Clinton is certainly a master at that. He has a personal relationship with the two guys involved, which is obviously a big plus... He can go and say 'I feel your pain' [to Uribe] or something to that effect, and be believed. He's good at that."

Certainly, having Bill Clinton as a mediator requires some initial conditions to be met. For starters, his wife would be the one calling the shots -- having too many cooks in the diplomatic kitchen is both problematic and dangerous. Moreover, Bill would have to untangle his financial ties and start publicly adopting positions that were in line with the Obama administration. The former task would cost money -- but that is usually the price of public service. The latter is merely a matter of control and messaging.

"He doesn't have to be supportive or critical," said Rob Shapiro, an undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton White House. "If asked about the contradiction between his position and the president's he ought to say: 'I support the position of the president.' And if they say what about the difference, he should say: 'I support the position of the president.'"

.

Ted Kennedy back to work

.