Obama’s Progressive Treasury Pick

The president adds a liberal to his centrist-dominated economic team.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


When President Obama first unveiled his economic team, it was dominated by centrists with strong ties to Wall Street and the bank-friendly policies of the past: Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Paul Volcker. Progressive policy-meisters in Washington and elsewhere complained and soon a progressive economist, Jared Bernstein, was added to the mix, but was placed on Vice President Joe Biden’s squad. This week, Obama added another economist of a left-of-center bent to the team—and placed him in a critical job.

Days ago, Alan Krueger, a longtime professor at Princeton University who served as the chief economist at the Department of Labor in the mid-’90s, was named the assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy. His appointment came amid criticism that many key positions in Geithner’s overburdened Treasury Department remained unfilled, even as the economy continues to crash. But now, as the Treasury battles to save the economy, its top egghead will be an academic who has won cheers from liberal economists.

“To my mind, he would be one of the best people we could hope to get in this position,” says Dean Baker, head of the left-leaning Center for Economic Policy Research. Adds CEPR’s chief economist, John Schmitt: “He has done a lot of research that progressives would be very happy about. He is certainly one of the absolute top labor economists in the country.” One-time Clinton economic aide and Berkeley economist Brad DeLong calls Krueger a “good choice.”

Krueger is best known for his work on the minimum wage. In 1997, he cowrote a book with economist David Card called Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage. They argued that the moderate increases in the minimum wage typically seen in the US don’t raise unemployment numbers—a thesis that went against much of the conventional wisdom at the time—and that such pay boosts have a substantial impact on the take-home pay of low-wage workers. The book, says progressive economist James K. Galbraith, established the minimum wage’s value “very firmly and to the horror of the mainstream.” At first, Krueger’s ideas on the minimum wage were highly controversial. “He took a lot of heat for that, and stood up,” says Schmitt. Krueger’s extensive background on issues related to job creation and wage distribution, Schmitt adds, will serve him well as the Obama team attempts to implement the stimulus bill, which aims to create more than 3 million new jobs.

Unlike many members of Bush’s economic team, Krueger has never worked for the financial industry. And unlike some of his bosses on the Obama team, he had no role in crafting the Treasury Department’s signature and much-criticized bailout plan. Secretary Geithner, for example, was president of the Federal Reserve of New York for five years and helped determine the Bush administration’s response to failures at Bear Stearns, AIG, and Lehman Brothers. “Bringing in economists that don’t have ties to Wall Street—that is particularly helpful in the Treasury at this moment,” says Schmitt.

One left-leaning economist who knows Krueger’s work well does question whether Krueger will too easily bow to the more centrist instincts of his bosses. “He has a very strong sense of when it’s beneficial to speak up and when it’s beneficial to not speak up,” says this economist, who does not want to be publicly identified as criticizing Krueger. “He’s a just a hugely political guy. He has a breathtaking understanding of the way politics happen in DC.”

There is one aspect of Krueger’s economic philosophy that may irk progressives. “He has very strong views on trade that probably differ from the typical progressive perspective,” says the unnamed economist. Like many members of Obama’s economic team, Krueger has embraced free trade policies. This will likely place him in opposition to those parts of the Democratic Party base that decry NAFTA and urge fair trade policies. But so far it’s unclear what trade policies will be promoted by the Obama administration.

How deep and how far will Krueger’s influence run in Obamaland? His position has a flexible job description. DeLong, who was deputy assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy from 1993 to 1995, describes Krueger’s responsibilities this way: “Whatever, and as much or as little, as the secretary wants.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate