"We have an agenda in this country now that I would regard as being a radical agenda. We had a budget come out that put a level of fear in this country that I've not seen ever in my life and I think that changed everything. This is the greatest wealth destruction I've ever seen in my life by any president.

In ensuing days, Cramer opened up the heavy artillery. In a pitch for his show, he declared that "Government of, by, and for the corporation is perishing from the Earth [and that] our country is now run by a president and a Bolshevik-leaning Democratic Party that are unfavorable to stocks and the people who own them." He compared Obama's cap-and-trade plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to Joe McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee.

In the weeks that followed, Cramer was called out by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and then humiliated by Jon Stewart with a series of clips and a riveting half-hour one-on-one interview. But then, suddenly, he disappeared from the headlines, for a very simple reason. He had been utterly, incredibly, irredeemably wrong. Because almost immediately after his crazy outbursts, the U.S. stock market went on a sustained bull run that has continued more or less right up until the present day. Lenin need not worry. If Obama had any aspirations at radical Bolshevik wealth-destruction, he failed miserably.

It is both hilarious and disturbing to go back and review Cramer's "Today" show appearance. "I think this is a bad market and I don't think people should count on it for anything positive," he said. He was wrong. "I see no reason to own any bank stocks," he said. He was wrong. He declared that "the stock market is the country right now." He was wrong.

Today, Obama's critics on the left savage the president because they hunger for a little more in the way of Bolshevik wealth redistribution than they have been getting, while his opponents on the right have picked up Cramer's socialism critique in a bizarre reality-distortion field that ignores everything that has actually been done to stabilize the country in as market-friendly a way as possible, with a second Great Depression looming right around the corner. Cramer doesn't seem too crazy anymore, now that a far more berserk contingent rampages across the media landscape every day. But the important thing to remember about Cramer is not only that he had his moment in the crazy sun last March. It's that he was just plain wrong. And yet he's still handsomely rewarded for spewing stock market tips and political commentary. That's what's really crazy.

Technically speaking, Larry Summers is probably correct. Although the National Bureau of Economic Research has yet to declare an "official" end to the recession, most economists believe that it ended earlier this fall or possibly even in the late summer. GDP is growing again (with a large number of analysts predicting a very robust fourth quarter) and a number of other economic indicators have stabilized or moved into positive territory.

But, of course, the job picture is terrible. More than 7 million Americans have lost their jobs since the start of the recession, and it will likely require years before we are back to pre-recession employment levels. Unemployment is a lagging indicator -- it can continue to get worse long after a recession technically ends, but that is of slight comfort to the people on Main Street who, as Romer points out, "are still suffering."

So Summers and Romer, despite the "trick question," are not necessarily contradicting each other, and maybe we can take some heart in the fact that Obama's White House does not speak in robotically identical talking points. But I will give readers one guess as to what's more important, politically speaking, as we approach the 2010 midterm elections; whether or not the recession is technically over, or the fact that unemployment is at 10 percent?

Which leads to the real puzzler. Larry Summers is a former Treasury secretary who has been around the block and is by all accounts a smart guy. Long before his service in the current administration, he'd been a veteran of countless appearances on news shows like "This Week." Christina Romer, on the other hand, is an academic economist whose previous life included nothing resembling her current prominence.

But which advisor has consistently displayed a better knack for political savvy and sensitivity to the concerns of American citizens? Keep an eye on that woman -- she's got a future.

Administration officials described the meeting as a continuation of discussions the president initiated early in his tenure and the latest push for lenders to take greater responsibility as the nation combats an economic crisis that began on Wall Street.

Specifically: Wall Street should fall in line with Obama and back a proposal for a consumer protection agency that cleared the House last week.

"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street," Obama told CBS's "60 Minutes" in an interview that broadcast Sunday.

Financial industry officials braced for Obama's tough tone. They planned to press a conciliatory message and highlight areas where they agree with the administration while smoothing over their differences.

But the executives also planned to stand up to the president on issues where they feel his statements oversimplify their positions -- particularly the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency -- according to people familiar with their thinking who spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to discuss the plans.

"He can say what he wants, but we're not going to go back to the kind of lending that put us in this mess," said a person who is helping prepare executives for the meeting. A dozen executives were on the list of those coming, from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., U.S. Bancorp , JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley and more.

A leading Obama aide, David Axelrod, said Monday the faceoff with the industry has been needed.

"It's a big concern," he said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

He said Obama's message will be, "You guys were part of the problem. You helped create an economic crisis ... but now you have to be part of the solution and you have to accelerate lending to credible small businesses."

Axelrod said the American people "are not going to tolerate a situation where the bankers have a party, the taxpayers pick up the tab. ... They (the bankers) have a stake in seeing this economy grow as well and the president is going to make that case." Axelrod said that Obama also is "going to talk to them about financial reform to avoid the kind of situation we saw in the last couple of years that brought about this crisis."

Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said Monday that Obama "should recognize that banks aren't going to lend money to people who won't pay them back. Banks can open the floodgates of cash, but you have inability of small business owners to pay back the loans."

Steele said on NBC's "Today" show that less regulation would return many small businesses to profitablity.

"They're up against the wall," he said, with regulations coming from the state and national governments. "Let's eliminate the capital gains tax, reduce the unemployment tax, and give some incentives for small businesses."

Bankers expected the regulatory overhaul to provide the meeting's most contentious moments. They believe the president has mischaracterized them as being against the new rules, when in fact they support the vast majority of the administration's proposals.

"These same banks who benefited from taxpayer assistance ... are fighting tooth and nail with their lobbyists up on Capitol Hill, fighting against financial regulatory control," Obama said in the "60 Minutes" interview.

One industry official said Obama is viewed as trying to paint the debate as either "You're with us or you're against us." The industry official said bankers did not view it that simply.

"We want him to know we have the same goals, but disagree about how to get there," the official said.

Bankers were planning to outline alternatives to the new consumer agency. Most lenders support strengthened consumer protections but believe the administration proposal would increase costs and create more gaps between regulators.

Administration officials said Obama would use a populist appeal when discussing pay for top executives at bailed-out institutions. Distaste for Wall Street remains high and Obama took a public shot at the banks in his interview.

"They're still puzzled why it is that people are mad at the banks," he said. "Well, let's see. You guys are drawing down 10, 20 million dollar bonuses after America went through the worst economic year ... in decades and you guys caused the problem."

Many firms have taken steps toward the administration's goals of tying pay to long-term performance and making sure companies do not encourage risky bets. Bowing to public outrage, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. announced Thursday that 30 top executives will receive long-term stock instead of cash for bonuses this year.

In his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama said the economy is only now beginning to recover from the "irresponsibility" of Wall Street institutions that "gambled on risky loans and complex financial products" in pursuit of short-term profits and big bonuses with little regard for long-term consequences.

"It was, as some have put it, risk management without the management," he said.

The president also told CBS' "60 Minutes" that "the people on Wall Street still don't get it. ... They're still puzzled why it is that people are mad at the banks. Well, let's see. You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year ... in decades and you guys caused the problem," Obama said in an excerpt released in advance of Sunday night's broadcast of his interview.

The House bill, which passed 223-202, would grant the government new powers to split up companies that threaten the economy, create an agency to oversee consumer banking transactions and shine a light into shadow financial markets that have escaped federal oversight.

Obama is seeking swift approval in the Senate "because we should never again find ourselves in the position in which our only choices are bailing out banks or letting our economy collapse."

No House Republicans voted for the bill, and 27 Democrats voted against it. Opponents argue that the broad legislation overreaches and would institutionalize bailouts for the financial industry.

The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee is working on its own version of the package.

In his address, Obama contended that the worst economic downturn since the Depression wouldn't have happened if the rules governing Wall Street been clearer and enforcement tougher.

Obama singled out Republicans and industry lobbyists for trying to block the changes.

Last week, top House Republicans urged more than 100 financial industry lobbyists to work harder to defeat the bill. Lobbyists have spent more than $300 million this year trying to scuttle the bill.

Opponents say that the changes would limit consumer choice and that added federal oversight would stunt financial market innovation.

Obama suggested that was one risk worth taking.

"Americans don't choose to be victimized by mysterious fees, changing terms and pages and pages of fine print. And while innovation should be encouraged, risky schemes that threaten our entire economy should not," he said. "We can't afford to let the same phony arguments and bad habits of Washington kill financial reform and leave American consumers and our economy vulnerable to another meltdown."

Obama has scheduled a meeting Monday at the White House with financial services industry leaders to seek support for his effort to tighten federal oversight of the industry and to limit pay for top executives at institutions that accepted billions in bailout money from the government.

------

On the Net:

Information on the House bill, H.R.4173, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/

Obama address: http://www.whitehouse.gov

Let's start with a minor nit, Taibbi's treatment of Austan Goolsbee, the University of Chicago economist who was one of Obama's chief economic advisors during the campaign. Taibbi describes Goolsbee as a "populist" who was exiled to "Siberia" after the election. Meanwhile, Taibbi also criticizes Obama for retreating from his campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA. Left out of the story is that Goolsbee achieved notoriety during the campaign precisely because he told Canadian government officials not to fuss about Obama's NAFTA promises -- dismissing them as just rhetoric. That's hardly the stuff of populism. It also might have been fun to ask Goolsbee what he thinks of Taibbi's overall thesis, since he's been one of the toughest and most eloquent defenders of Obama's overall strategy to date.

Next up, a much more serious point. Taibbi writes: "Neil Barofsky, the inspector general charged with overseeing TARP, estimates that the total cost of the Wall Street bailouts could eventually reach $23.7 trillion." Here, Taibbi is doing the likes of Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs, who both went nuts over this number, completely proud. The fact is, the $23.7 trillion number is ridiculous. Not only did Barofsky himself note that it was overblown, but it also included the total potential cost of government programs that never even got started or have already been canceled. Furthermore it assumes a financial cataclysm that would make the Great Depression look like a kindergarten water fight. Let's outsource to the New York Times' Floyd Norris:

[The number] assumes that every home mortgage backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac goes into default, and all the homes turn out to be worthless. It assumes that every bank in America fails, with not a single asset worth even a penny. And it assumes that all of the assets held by money market mutual funds, including Treasury bills, turn out to be worthless.

It would also require the Treasury itself to default on securities purchased by the Federal Reserve system.

A responsible writer might also at least nod to the fact that a hefty percentage of TARP outlays have been or will be repaid to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, which chisels away at some of the meaning of the word "giveaway," but that's not Taibbi's style.

Taibbi also ridicules a major early address by Obama on the economy, picking on one sentence: "Credit is the lifeblood of the economy," he declared, pledging "the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money." To Taibbi, this means that Obama was simply going to encourage Americans to start binge borrowing again, and maintain the Bush status quo "of keeping a few megafirms rich at the expense of everyone else.

This passage betrays an amazing failure to recall exactly what was happening to the U.S. economy in the months after the presidential election, and during the first quarter of 2009. The economy was in utter freefall, in large part because everyone, from the biggest banks to the the lowliest consumer, was afraid to borrow or spend. Corporations that depended on short-term loans from banks to fund daily expenses were suddenly getting shut out, forcing a chain reaction of layoffs and liquidity squeezes that threatened to drag the entire economy even further down a disastrous spiral. The great achievement of the Obama presidency in those first few months was to effectively stabilize that situation, unlock the credit crunch, and halt one of the great financial panics of our time. As Obama noted himself last week, using taxpayer money to bail out the banks was incredibly unpopular and "galling." But we'd all be a lot angrier and unhappier now, and unemployment would be a lot higher, if we'd stepped back and allowed Citigroup or Bank of America to fail.

Then there's just silly stuff, like describing Alan Greenspan as "a staggeringly incompetent economic forecaster who was worshipped by four decades of politicians because he once dated Barbara Walters." Staggeringly incompetent he may well be, but is the latter half of that description even funny?

Naturally, there is a lot of meat to Taibbi's larger themes, such as the overrepresentation of Wall Street in Obama economic policy making -- though strangely, Taibbi never even mentions Christina Romer, one of the top three Obama economic policy advisors, albeit the one who just happens to be the least connected to the financial industry. It's also absolutely worth harping on the spectacle of how efforts at financial reform have been undermined over the course of the year, although from my vantage point, the administration has proposed plenty of good things that have then crashed against the rocks of congressional resistance and maneuvering.

But the co-optation of regulatory reform by Wall Street is an important story, and one that needs to be pressed at every point. It would be nice though, if the left could pursue that story without flaunting the same cavalier attitude toward the complexity of the economic challenges faced by the current administration that we are already so familiar with from the right.