Robert Kuttner is not a fan of Rubin's, or his advice to Citi: 

"The former treasury secretary was also heavily involved in Citigroup’s catastrophic strategy of betting the company on big plays involving structured financial products and derivatives. But unlike the smarter wiseguys down the block at Goldman Sachs, Rubin’s guys bet on the wrong side — causing losses into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Citi survived only because of massive bailouts devised by Rubin’s former business partner Hank Paulson, his protégé Timothy Geithner and his No. 1 acolyte, Larry Summers. Rubin has been a disaster for Citi and for the economy, as both a business strategist and a policymaker. But evidently, he still has currency as a fixer." 

As Rubin comes public as a deficit hawk, Kuttner advises not buying what he's selling given his past failures:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36505.html   The New Democrat business plans have been horrible for American workers, but they did manage to create plenty of growth for business in the 90s. 

Exactly!  And, of course, the SPLC isn't exactly nothing, either.

You know what's fun?  Ask these people to describe and define "managerial talent."  They can't do it.  Pick up any book about it and the concepts are so flimsy that you soon realize you're reading some variation on the usual crud.  Be organized, set a good example, delegate except where you shouldn't, give freedom except where you should reign people in.  Don't be the guy who fired Steve Jobs at Apple (unless you're judging the choice in real time in which case some people said "look how brave he is, firing the founder for the sake of the company.")  It's all crud.

I once interviewed this guy Ram Charan, who is Jack Welch's management guru and advisor for over an hour and I got nothing of substance out of him except that when you have to do layoffs, do them in one round so that everybody left isn't waiting for the axe to fall again.  Wow. For that he's a genius?  It's all hogwash.

I think Rubin would point out that you are simply one of those people who just won't ever be satisfied. I mean, the Dow is up. Bank profits are at record highs. Corporate profits are up. CEO compensation packages have never been more lucrative. Taxes are low and going lower. Derivative trading remains lucrative and unregulated. "We gots us a license to steal, I'm tellin' ya!" sez Rubin.

And yet you want to complain about unemployment and the quality of jobs being offered to his gardener and his household help?

Jeez, Louise! Go buy your own Democrats if you is gonna insist on messing up a good thing, why don't ya?

neither progressives nor conservatives have articulated a vision for retirement security” that guarantees a reasonable nest egg while also helping workers invest in equities"

Yes, we're all to blame, because progressives have failed to come up with their own Social Security privatization plan grounded in faith-based reliance on the Street.  Sheesh.

Sperling is one of those guys from the 90's whose view is that the reason the bottom half is falling behind is that they are not heavily enough invested in financial products.  He's also one of the Clinton retreads who were already scheming back in the day to quasi-privatize Social Security.  My guess is that what we're going to get from an Obama-Sperling team is further "temporary" cuts in the payroll tax, cuts which will be an easy sell during the recession, but will never be cancelled.  This loss of revenue will create a Social Security funding problem that will be attacked by slashing benefits.  Meanwhile, some kinds of new privatized but government-assisted and underwritten retirement products will be introduced.  Social Security privatization is thus broken up into separate, seemingly independent packages, so that it doesn't have to be marketed to the public as a privatization plan.

Wall Street, whose greed is bottomless, whose chief passion is the love of fatal risk and rounds of Russian Roulette with the savings of America, and who are ever in search of new revenue streams, has been dying to get its itchy, twitchy fingers on America's Social Security transfer payments for years.  Obama seems determined to be the guy who helps them get this job done.

As Jimmy Stewart warned, "Potter isn't selling; he's buying!"  Wall Street is buying the Social Security program from America in bits and pieces by offering free money tax cuts that will eventually have to be paid back - and the price they'll demand is the Social Security program.   But remember the scene where Potter tries to buy George Bailey off with a fancy job and a big raise?   Well, Barack Obama is the star of a new dystopian remake of It's a Wonderful Life where Bailey shakes Potter's hand, takes the job and proceeds to help fleece the citzens of Bedford Falls out of their savings and security.

It's pretty amazing that a mere two years after a riot of rampant, nationwide Ponzi investment crashed the economy, drove 10% of us into unemployment, evaporated the retirement savings of millions of Americans and saddled the balance sheets of America with enormous amounts of toxic assets that still haven't been cleared, a program of negative change brought to us by the hustlers and hucksters of the finacial services industry, the paramours of Big Finance are back in the saddle of government, selling us the same bill of neoliberal and market fundamentalist goods they were hawking in the 90's.

Obama seems to be one of those Third Way guys who some years back bought into the argument that the only serious and courageous progressives are those with the balls to take on and kill Social Security.  I should have paid attention to the warning signs back in 2007 and 2008 when Obama was caught arguing that Social Security was in "crisis".  He then backtracked - but I think now that that statement revealed his true thinking.

I don't hate the guy personally.  But on the real bread and butter economic issues, the guy is turning out to be a giant ass.  He strikes me as a lot like Clinton: an opportunistic social climber who advances himself by showing the powerful how eager he is to please them and act as their gofer.

I don't it has to be total thumbs up or total thumbs down.  But when one considers following, one has to consider that Sperling is just someone who believes the only thing in the world is his bank account and the bank accounts of his buddies:

After the Clinton administration ended in 2001, Sperling, according to a former Clinton administration aide, spoke to several "wise men" about what he should do next. As a former NEC director, he was in great spot to cash in. And he received the same career advice from all of these counselors: go to Wall Street for the next eight years, make millions, and then return to public service (when there might be a Democratic president). He didn't follow this guidance. Instead, Sperling devoted most of his time to addressing the challenge of global poverty, particularly promoting the need for basic education in developing nations (with an emphasis on educating young girls). He created and led the Center for Universal Education at the Council on Foreign Relations. (The center is now based at the Brookings Institution.) He wrote papers and articles and convened seminars on how the world's wealthy had to do more (and spend more) to redress poverty in developing nations, especially Africa, where he traveled frequently. He developed a program with Hollywood star Angelina Jolie to push for educating children in regions of conflict.

In 2000, the United Nations had devised the Millennium Development Goals, which included ensuring that every child on the planet could complete primary education by 2015. Sperling was doing what he could to hold wealthy nations to this target. "He fully embraced the idea that basic education was core to positive development overseas and tried to make that issue central to US deveopment thinking and strategy," says Ray Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. Tom Hart, senior director of government relations at ONE, a nonprofit focused on African development, notes that Sperling "was a leading outside-the-government advocate for basic education, and he used his considerable network built during the Clinton administration to work on this. He didn't have to focus on this. He chose to." A friend of Sperling adds, "After having been head of the NEC for Clinton, he could have immediately gone to Wall Street and made a lot of money. That's what most people in his situation do. But he didn't. A lot of us who know him scratched our heads about that."

The same goes with his article regarding the Wire.  At some level, one has to say the fella gets it.

....When someone creates a remarkable television show about the lives of largely overlooked and ignored black young men, the show itself is largely overlooked and ignored.

I won't push the metaphor too far. The program's slight is a mere shame. That our nation has no comprehensive response to the high numbers of young minority males who drop out, are unemployed or who get caught up in the criminal justice system is a disgrace.

``Over the last two decades, the economy did great, and low- skilled women, helped by public policy, latched on to it,'' says Ronald B. Mincy, a professor of social policy at Columbia University in New York. ``But young black men were falling farther back.''

While our failure starts with our unwillingness to pass a quality early-education program for all disadvantaged children from birth to age 5, at least poor toddlers are treated as sympathetic and deserving in the rhetoric of most politicians. Yet, when the same children are forced to fend for themselves in violent and decaying neighborhoods with inferior schools and end up opting for destructive activities, too often these young men are simply blamed for making ``poor choices.''