From his time at Chicago, Obama should also be well versed in public choice theory. If the federal government is handing out trillions, those seeking rents will inevitably step up their efforts. They probably won’t even complain too much when Obama’s populist rhetoric includes unkind words about the industry (so long as it involves “merely shaming,” and not actual action).

Somewhere, Marx and Engels are grinning.

Do you mean retro-actively tax the ill-gotten wealth of people like Jon Corzine and Jamie Gorelick?

Do you think Niebuhr would think that I, as a conservative Republican hell bent on avoiding, the nationalization of our health care system, am naive to assume good faith on the part of all those top-tier law school educated attorneys (i.e. the Clintons, the Obamas etc…) who, even though obviously smart enough to handle the rigors of med school and thus be in a position to contribute directly to our health care system in their own preferred way, choose instead to just sit on the sidelines and harp about the injustice of it all?

…and please, Mr. Obama was at best an instructor.If you can achieve professor status at a so-called top tier school without publishing even a paragraph of legal scholarship, wouldn’t that cause at least a few of you to question your route to the top?

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2009/01/geithner-needs-to-tell-bank-of-america-to-cut-a-4-billion-check-to-the-us-treasury-now.html

“Geithner Needs to Tell Bank of America to Cut a $4 billion Check to the U.S. Treasury, Now”

Well, I suppose it was only a matter of time before we had some dissenting opinions on concurring opinions! Here’s some reasons why I think I have to dissent from the expert law prof consensus on how to discuss these matters (even if I end up, like Justice Stevens in the Scott v. Harris decision, the only person who has this perspective):

1) As for Reich, and your query on “what is so special about the Wall Street lobbyists:” I linked to a study that documented how “the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) industries that collectively are at the center of the current crisis are the single largest sector–by far–of all the major economic and interest groupings that give campaign contributions to federal politicians.” I would also note that most heads of nonprofit organizations do not sport the kind of centimillionaire fortunes that people like Fuld, O’Neal, and others are enjoying–and their subordinates are unlikely to enjoy the 7 and 8 figure incomes enjoyed by many at the Wall Street firms.

I am aware that Charles Lindblom-style “circularity” is a pervasive problem. But when an industry that has caused so much damage, and done so much self-dealing, goes on with business as usual even as it gets billions from opaque arrangements with the Fed, surely this is qualitatively different than the ordinary run of the DC influence game. The only comparable thing I can think of is the DOD’s “black budget”–not exactly a model one would wish to extend.

Moreover, it appears that Geithner thinks there may be need for special lobbying rules here:

As reported here, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28870041/ ,

“The new rules come in the wake of fresh lobbying reports filed with the government showing some big banks stepped up their lobbying efforts late last year even as they received billions of dollars from the bailout program.”

The only thing I wonder about (along with Elizabeth Warren), is why weren’t these rules imposed earlier?

2. As for “they’re all elites”: I’ll agree with that assessment. My concern is just that we have elites whose main purpose is enhancing the competitiveness of the nation as a whole, improving our education system, assuring health care to all, and rebuilding our infrastructure. If you can tell me how the Wall St. lobbyists are doing that better than the “housing, consumers, education, technology” lobbyists you mention, I’d share your apparent relativism about the worthiness of their efforts.

3. As for the “co-opting:” I’ll just pick one issue that stands for many. If an administration co-opts, say, PhRMA, to help get poor kids insured, I like that co-optation. If they co-opt such a trade association to help deny coverage to kids, I don’t like it. I explain that point more in this post, also linked to above:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/07/what_larry_does.html

[Just to be clear on the LArry title--it's about Lessig, not you!]

4. The “gun/knife” issue is apparent even here. Consider the degree to which this issue is getting politicized presently:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/ugh.html

As Reinhold Neibuhr argued in “Moral Man, Immoral Society,” an assumption of the good faith of the other side is often dangerously naive. I didn’t see good faith in the Bush administration’s opposition to SCHIP, and I don’t see good faith in a quote like this on the stimulus:

“They can cram down a stimulus package without Republican support,” said Kyl, “but if that happens, then when, as we believe, in six months or so, when the American people say, ‘Wait a minute, we’re not better off. In fact, we’re worse off than we were six months ago. Who is responsible for this and what can be done to fix it?’ Republicans then are going to be in a position to say, ‘We didn’t have the input in this and that’s why it didn’t work.’”

This all seems very cynical and worrisome. Some notes/queries:

On Mr. Reich’s “patient” comments, every moderately funded interest group lobbys extensively in Washington, many with the functional equivalent of what Mr. Reich calls taxpayer funds, including non-profit organizations that do not pay taxes. What is so special about the lobbyists that this post quotes him as calling out?

Concerning David Leonhardt’s purported interpretation of Mancur Olson’s work, see my post from last night, a few down from this one, wondering what in the world Mr. Leonhardt’s strange piece is talking about.

On “the role of elites like our Wall Street titans in coopting government,” who among Washington lobbyists are not “elites” trying to “coopt government,” whether working for Wall Street, Main Street or coal miners or for housing, consumers, education, technology or what not?

Why is it okay for a “savvy Democratic administration . . . to co-opt . . . in order to achieve higher ends” if other kinds of co-opting for some other conception of “higher ends” is not okay?

On “bringing a knife to a gun fight,” why this kind of imagery in a discussion of national economic policy and philosophy?

Is this the best way to discuss these challenges?