January 31, 2010 3:26 PM

Back From the Brink

By
CBSNews
(CBS)  As the previous Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson took a calculated risk in the economic meltdown, and took his lumps from a number of critics. This morning he's talking back - and looking back - with our Anthony Mason:


Seventy-five men have served as Treasury Secretary of the United States. Few have had the impact of Henry Merritt Paulson, Jr.

In 2008, as the global economy teetered on a precipice, he became the face of the financial crisis and he was still answering for his decisions at a hearing on Capitol Hill last week.

Paulson left the Treasury last January after a turbulent two-and-a-half-year tenure.

"When I walked out, in some ways I was ready to go," he said. "We did things that were unpopular at the time, are even more unpopular today as the public has gotten angry."

In his first television interview since stepping down, he acknowledged history is judging him harshly.

"And do you think that anger is justified?" Mason asked.

"I tell you I understand that anger," Paulson said.

The crisis tested Paulson. A prince of Wall Street and ardent defender of free markets, he became perhaps the biggest government interventionist of modern times. "King Henry" became the "Bailout King."

"Did you find yourself sort of wrestling with your economic and political philosophy?" Mason asked.

"I didn't have to wrestle," he replied. "I didn't think a lot about theory. I just understood how bad it could be. And so I just felt like I was racing against time with inadequate tools and authorities, to try to stave off disaster."

Critics have accused him of "lurching from crisis to crisis": Paulson has spent the past year answering them, writing a book he calls "On the Brink" (Hachette Book Group).

"I believe that if the system collapsed, we easily could have seen unemployment of 25%," Paulson said. "And so that reality was staring me in the face, and it was an awful reality."

"How close in your view did we come to that?"

"Oh, I think we came very, very close."

When President Bush tapped the Goldman Sachs CEO to become Treasury Secretary, he chose a straight-talking deal maker who has never liked playing defense.

An all-Ivy tackle for Dartmouth in the 1960s, "Hammering Hank" was known for his aggressive play.

"Who first gave you the nickname the Hammer?" Mason.

"I don't remember," Paulson said, who admitted, "It stuck."

After college, Paulson landed a job in the Pentagon and was assigned to help the failing Lockheed Corporation.

"It's rather ironic, I got some early bailout experience," he said.

He moved over to the Nixon White House for a year and a half, before rising up the ranks of the powerhouse Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs.

When he left the company to become Treasury Secretary, he sold his stock for nearly half a billion dollars.

But Paulson and his wife Wendy, who are avid environmentalists, have never liked the flashy New York lifestyle.

"I grew up on, actually, a farm not far from here, through sixth grade," Paulson said. "And then we sold the farm and moved here."

His mother still lives in that house in Barrington, Ill., outside Chicago. In the Seventies, the Paulsons built a house next door on land they bought from his parents.

"Gave 'em a note because I didn't have any money to buy it with, and we paid it off over time," he said.

They planned to move back here after he left Wall Street, but then the president called.

"You probably figured it was going to be a couple of quiet years in Washington?" Mason asked.

"It's never a couple of quiet years with Hank," replied Wendy Paulson.

Unwittingly, Paulson walked into an economic earthquake - first the rescue of Bear Stearns, then the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

When he took the first steps toward the ultimate seizure of the mortgage giants on a July Sunday outside the Treasury, he thought he had contained the crisis:

"That was the time I was perhaps most hopeful," he said. "I remember going out on the steps and we were racing to beat a thunderstorm."

"As it turned out that's exactly what you were doing," said Mason.

"That's exactly right!"

Within weeks, Lehman Brothers, the 157-year-old investment bank was on the brink of collapse. Holed up on the 13th floor of the New York Federal Reserve with Timothy Geithner, Paulson worked the phones to find a buyer, but failed.

"My stomach tightened up and it was one of those times during the crisis where I was momentarily overcome by fear," Paulson said.

A Christian Scientist, Paulson called home to his wife Wendy:

"And I said, 'Everybody's going to be looking to me for answers, and I don't have any. Please help me, pray for me.' But boy, that was, that was a dark, dark hour."

It would get darker.

When Lehman went under the next day, the stock market plunged more than 500 points. It didn't help that Paulson implied he'd been unwilling to save Lehman: at a press conference he said, "I never once considered that it was appropriate to put taxpayer money on the line."

"You took a lot of heat for the outcome of Lehman," said Mason. "The French Finance Minister called it horrendous."

"These critics look and say, 'Well, look at Bear Stearns, look at AIG, why not Lehman?'" Paulson said. "But the fact, the situation at Lehman was very different. No human being could have worked any harder than I did for a long period of time to help Lehman Brothers."

Paulson insists that without a buyer, the government had no authority to help save Lehman.

The crisis was wearing on the Treasury chief, and when Paulson grew exhausted he was prone to an embarrassing condition: the dry heaves.

"Were you concerned that if people saw you . . . ?" Mason.

"Oh absolutely," he said. "I knew I was fine, but for someone to see the Treasury Secretary doubled over with the dry heaves! They heard it once."

"How do you explain that?"

"I didn't explain it. I just kept goin'."

This past week, Paulson was asked to explain his role in the controversial AIG rescue. Billions pumped into the collapsing insurance giant was used to pay off banks in full - including Paulson's former company Goldman Sachs, now run by Lloyd Blankfein.

"Some have suggested that you had a special interest in protecting Goldman," Mason said.

"When I became Treasury Secretary, I sold my Goldman Sachs stock. I severed my relationship with Goldman Sachs. My responsibility was to the American people."

"And you spoke to Lloyd Blankfein 24 times in 6 days. Why?"

"Well, first of all I doubt I spoke with Lloyd Blankfein 24 times in 6 days ..."

The phone records say he did.

But they also show he talked constantly with Wall Street executives, he says to keep track of the markets.

Many will remember him only as the man who bailed out the banks:

"And I will tell you right now and tell the American people, they're not going to lose a dime on the money that we put in those banks."

History may prove him right. Most of the major banks have already paid back the TARP money, with interest. They're also paying themselves billions in bonuses again.

"If you were back running a bank today, would you be paying the kind of bonuses that are being paid on Wall Street?" Mason asked.

"I think some of these numbers seem ridiculously high," Paulson said.

A year after he left the Treasury, Paulson says not enough has changed.

"Is the patient still sick?" Mason asked.

"The patient is stable and recovering if the patient is the banking system," Paulson said. "But if the patient is the regulatory system, that patient is still very sick."

But Hank Paulson is not the doctor anymore. He is now visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, teaching classes, and at 63, considering his next step.

"You said, I think, that you didn't want to be Treasury Secretary just to be Treasury Secretary -
you wanted to have an impact," Mason said.

"That's for sure, yes."

"You did have an impact."

"I did have an impact, although I would have settled for having a much smaller impact," Paulson said.


For more info:
"On the Brink: Inside the Race to Stop the Collapse of the Global Financial System" by Henry Paulson (Hachette Book Group)

Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 35 Comments
by curse914 January 31, 2010 11:43 PM EST
by ToolMangler1 January 31, 2010 10:34 PM EST
by curse914 January 31, 2010 7:44 PM EST
"Milton Freidman argued that the Market may actually alleviate the criminal side effects of illegal drugs, by legalizing them and taxing them"


You are right, legalize the drugs and give the users free healthcare and welfare. That way you have room in the jails for "who" at twice the price. All I ask is "Who works"? and why should they?????

-----------------------------

Even if your premise is true, you ignored the tax revenue generated.
Reply to this comment
by starving1968-2 January 31, 2010 9:21 PM EST
by curse914 January 31, 2010 7:48 PM EST

Certainly, that is how we became the economic super power that we were in the 1960s. And "Free Trade" only serves to make it easier for corporations to outsource labor to countries with zero, product and labor laws. I question the whole premise of an infinite growth based economy, manufacturing or otherwise.






During WWII, our manufacturers saved the war, with the ability to retool their factories, and produce the necessary weapons / ammo / transportation that our military needed.

If the same was required of our manufacturers today, we couldn't win a war against a third world country, because our manufacturing has been so devastatingly crippled.
Reply to this comment
by janejumbomargarita January 31, 2010 7:58 PM EST
Hank Paulsen will now make thousands from his new tell-nothing tome Back From The Brink. He makes me sick. Together with the sufferance of Congress, the Fed with players and cronies like Hank and Timmy Geithner ran up the bubble to the bursting point, scrambled to save their pals, then went in to take over the administrations' two different treasury departments under the guise of saving the economy. WAFJ. We get the government we deserve. Wake up, America! These sleazeballs are selling and sucking us out, and when the Chinese come to collect they will sidle up to the communists.
Reply to this comment
by wjksea January 31, 2010 6:59 PM EST
Of all the government haters out there who believe the government should be so small as to be drowned in a bathtub.. which set of global Oligarchs would rule at this point?
Reply to this comment
by wjksea January 31, 2010 6:51 PM EST
I remember Paulson, beet red with rage yelling I believe it was on the senate floor, something to the effect of "Leave the government out of the free market". Maybe that's why the war on drugs is perpetual, it's under the guidance of the free market.
Reply to this comment
by curse914 January 31, 2010 7:44 PM EST
If by guidance you mean, its nature of being illegal makes these illicit substances vastly more expensive, then yes.

Since the War on Drugs has been a spectacular failure, to think about it critically, one would have to ask who is really benefiting from the illegal nature of these substances?

Milton Freidman argued that the Market may actually alleviate the criminal side effects of illegal drugs, by legalizing them and taxing them. And I think it is worth a try given we have spent 1.3 Trillion on the War on Drugs to date.
by ToolMangler1 January 31, 2010 10:34 PM EST
by curse914 January 31, 2010 7:44 PM EST
"Milton Freidman argued that the Market may actually alleviate the criminal side effects of illegal drugs, by legalizing them and taxing them"


You are right, legalize the drugs and give the users free healthcare and welfare. That way you have room in the jails for "who" at twice the price. All I ask is "Who works"? and why should they?????
by starving1968-2 January 31, 2010 5:50 PM EST
by curse914 January 31, 2010 5:44 PM EST

As it is, we are so far into debt, it is only a matter of time before we as a nation default on it. My guess is within the next 4 years we will default on our debt to China. China will become the new dominant economic super power.

We should be asking ourselves, is a service based economy possible? Is an infinite growth based economy sustainable? Does Free Trade really raise all boats?







Manufacturing is the life blood of ANY great society, and the muscle of ANY long term financial stability, and free trade agreements and corporations ready to take advantage of them, have used them to move most of their manufacturing operations offshore.

Our life blood and muscle has been drastically reduced.
Reply to this comment
by wjksea January 31, 2010 6:46 PM EST
So with that the question raised should be, why did the supreme court grant "free speech" to global corporate plutocracies in we the people's sovereignty? Yes Alito, it is true, you are a traitor.
by curse914 January 31, 2010 7:48 PM EST
by starving1968-2 January 31, 2010 5:50 PM EST

Manufacturing is the life blood of ANY great society, and the muscle of ANY long term financial stability, and free trade agreements and corporations ready to take advantage of them, have used them to move most of their manufacturing operations offshore.

Our life blood and muscle has been drastically reduced.

-----------------------------

Certainly, that is how we became the economic super power that we were in the 1960s. And "Free Trade" only serves to make it easier for corporations to outsource labor to countries with zero, product and labor laws. I question the whole premise of an infinite growth based economy, manufacturing or otherwise.
by curse914 January 31, 2010 5:44 PM EST
by starleo146 January 31, 2010 5:26 PM EST
WERE YOU THERE DURING THE LAST DEPRESSION 1929 Wall Street failed people jumping out of windows, soup lines, no jobs. I was being sarcastic in my remark about Wall Street failing. It will not be good, these treasury secretaries who both were CEO's for Goldman Sachs, all other Wall Street firms being punished but not Goldman Sach's. What's with that ?

------------------------
------------------------

Wall Street and the Banking system are not the same entity, but thanks to deregulation, they were getting very close. So, I see your point and did understand you were being sarcastic.

The Banks could have been allowed to collapse over a long period of time, to prevent "runs" on the bank.

As it is, we are so far into debt, it is only a matter of time before we as a nation default on it. My guess is within the next 4 years we will default on our debt to China. China will become the new dominant economic super power.

We should be asking ourselves, is a service based economy possible? Is an infinite growth based economy sustainable? Does Free Trade really raise all boats?
Reply to this comment
by starving1968-2 January 31, 2010 5:01 PM EST
<EXTREME SARCASM>

Gee, there's a LOT of mis-statements in this article.

I mean Beck, Limbaugh, and Coulter are telling everyone that OBAMA took over Fannie, Freddie, and Bear Stearns.

Why would ANYONE believe the treasury secretary, over those "bastions of truth"?

</EXTREME SARCASM>
Reply to this comment
by curse914 January 31, 2010 4:24 PM EST
by starleo146 January 31, 2010 2:29 PM EST
I may be wrong, but all this I feel started with Reagan's deregulation of everything. Reagan's economics of trickle down theory was just the worse thing to hit this country. It will bring out comments on me, picking a republican to blame, but honestly It started then,and steadily got worse and worse from one administration to the last administration. You are right Paulsen did look out after Goldman Sachs and did let Leahman Brothers fall. Not one other company was not helped. I will never forget Paulsen face on the steps of the treasury building with Dubya heading towards him also with a big smile, after receiving the 750 billion, which hasn't been accounted for to this day.

----------------------------------
----------------------------------

Yes, someone most definitely made out like a bandit, and it was not the tax payer.
Reply to this comment
by nearl451 January 31, 2010 5:50 PM EST
You are looking in the right era, but to be accurate, the banking deregulations actually started under Carter, then more at the times of Reagan,HW, Clinton, and W.
by wjksea January 31, 2010 4:17 PM EST
"I believe that if the system collapsed, we easily could have seen unemployment of 25%," Paulson said. "And so that reality was staring me in the face, and it was an awful reality."

Libertarians seem to believe this would have been the best route and republicans agree for political points--at this time that is.
Reply to this comment
by janejumbomargarita January 31, 2010 8:03 PM EST
Reinflating the bubble time after time serves only to postpone the inevitable day of reckoning when the US government declares itself unable to repay its debt. We will be owned.
See all 35 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook