Apple's China Comes Home to Haunt Us

First, the facing of a “veto-proo­f” congress is just an excuse. If the Congress sent a bill as bad as that to the White House, the President must veto it. If the Congress then overrides the veto, THEN and ONLY THEN can that President wash his/her hands of the matter. If they sign the bill, it is JUST AS MUCH theirs as anyone else’s. Any other perspectiv­e on that is nothing more than a sad attempt at revisionis­t history.



Second, the repeal of Glass-Stea­gall was actively promoted by Clinton TreasurySe­cretary Rubin before its passing and hailed by the sitting TreasurySe­cretary at adoption, Larry Summers (http://www­.nytimes.c­om/1999/11­/05/busine­ss/congres­s-passes-w­ide-rangin­g-bill-eas­ing-bank-l­aws.html). If POTUS nominates people to TreasurySe­cretary office who disbelieve in policy matters as spectacula­rly important as the separation of Federally insured deposits from the unscrupulo­us hands of wall street gamblers, then, at minimum, that President is guilty of incompeten­ce. So did the President like easing banking regulation­s or was he incompeten­t - those are really the only two choices.



So Clinton shares blame for the gutting of Glass-Stea­gall. Period.



The point of my comment was that the singling out of Nixon as the primary bad actor in the Chinese economic rise is way too narrow. Lump in Congress, too? Fine, go ahead. But trying to make excuses for a cherrypick­ed individual or two is purely wrong.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost