Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditGoldman Sachs is making a comeback -- maybe not on the stock market -- but in Washington DC.
Timothy Geithner, recently confirmed by the Senate as Treasury Secretary, has reportedly tapped a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist to be his chief of staff. Mark Patterson worked as a registered lobbyist at the investment firm from 2005 to April of last year.
It's no wonder that Geithner, who's succeeding Henry Paulson at Treasury, would appoint a Goldman insider to serve as his right hand man. Paulson was once CEO at Goldman Sachs himself. At Treasury he was preceded in the Clinton administration by Robert Rubin, yet another Goldman CEO.
Goldman is about as connected a firm as they come. The firm paid former President Bill Clinton almost $950,000 for speeches he delivered between 2004 and 2007. The company's Political Action Committee was the fourth largest donor to Senator Clinton's campaign, right after Citigroup. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Goldman PAC -- to which Geithner's purported Chief of Staff contributed - invested well over half a million in contributions to Congressional candidates in the 2008 cycle, mostly Democrats, and mostly incumbents. Goldman Sachs employees alone contributed more than $5 million. Candidate Obama received over $1,000,000 himself from Goldman in the 2007-2008 fundraising cycle.
It puts a bit of a pall on President Obama's pledge to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration.
Obama has said that if lobbyists work for him they won't work on areas on which they've lobbied. It's hard to imagine how that will work out for Patterson. As ABC News notes:
"…even if he recuses himself from matters related to Goldman, there is little outside oversight. The position of chief of staff is appointed by the secretary of treasury and does not require Senate approval..." As most of the treasury staff's business goes on behind closed doors, there will be little for outsiders to see.
What we do know is that Goldman Sachs executives had a seat at the table when the regulations on finance were loosened under Clinton and they've had a seat at the table since the whole bailout business began. The firm was an early and large recipient of TARP funding. Goldman received $10 billion almost immediately. It's hard to think of a single solitary reason why anything or anyone would be likely to stop the flow.
And for continuity's sake, the fellow selected to replace Geithner at the New York Fed, William C. Dudley, was, formerly chief economist at--hold your breath--Goldman Sachs.
Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv, which broadcasts weekdays on Free Speech TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415) on cable (8 pm ET on Channel 67 in Manhattan) and online at GRITtv.org or streaming live on The Nation.com Mondays through Thursdays from noon to 2 pm ET.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"It puts a bit of a pall on President Obama's pledge to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration."
That's rather charitable. Why not simply be forthright and call him a liar, which is what he is, of course.
Posted by john lowell at 01/28/2009 @ 5:23pm
It may seem counter intuitive to place the guys that got us into this mess... in charge of getting us out of it... but we don't really have a lot of other 'shovel ready' options at the moment.
The big problems I have with the TARP allocation are the 'blank checkiness' of its parameters and the seemingly total lack of oversight implicit within the scope of its intentions.
Why the cloak of secrecy... Why the absence of accountability... Why aren't the 'powers that be' explaining in no uncertain terms exactly what precipitated this barely precedented global downturn...?
Once these guys are in, they'll have some explaining to do... and there's probably not more than 99 people in this whole world who aren't at least 'slightly' interested in what the answers will be...
On the other hand... if we can soften the shock significantly... there may be no better time to exchange our 'culture of consumption' for something a little more user friendly...;^)
At the moment... the majority of the US population... people who had the least responsibility for our current economic tragedy... are paying the dearest price, and being cut to the bone... as we are faced with losing everything for reasons that have naught to do with our intentions, our latent abilities, or our understanding of 'Freedom'... and now may have nothing to fall back on but our default American dream... known by many as the art of starting over from scratch...
But this, my friends... we will have to take very seriously.
Posted by ttr at 01/28/2009 @ 5:35pm
New currency after national default to read:
IN GOLDMAN SACHS WE TRUST
Posted by OneVote at 01/28/2009 @ 6:44pm
That's rather charitable. Why not simply be forthright and call him a liar, which is what he is, of course.
Posted by john lowell at 01/28/2009 @ 5:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It IS the Undemocrat party way to do business isn't it LIE LIE LIE! Now we have a tax dodger for Treas.of the U.S.A. and his failue buddies that helped run a business into the ground where they belong, in a Undemocrat federal government!!!
Posted by comancheamerican at 01/28/2009 @ 7:19pm
I guess what's been pissing me off is our glamour-centric approach to this world wide endemic of economic manipulation... focusing everyone's attention on the 'stars'... talking about ideologies... comparing and analyzing the 'imaginary numbers' of algebraic macro-economics...
...and giving only passing condolences to the billions of lives effected by this unwarranted turmoil... in effect, subtly blaming these disproportionate billions of victims... while broadcasting fear on every channel with scarcely a hint of solid solutions and firm commitments toward backing up the citizens of this country and the greater world at large...
Haven't we been picking up the pieces 'trickling down' long enough? I mean... who wants to hear about these guys from economitopia any more anyway? They couldn't have been more wrong, we all did our best to 'believe' them while shackled by the proofs that it wasn't really working, and now an entire economic paradigm has been rather thoroughly discredited... to the unconscionable detriment of those who benefited least of all from the excesses.
I want to see tangible results and a firm commitment to 'trickle up' economics, compassion, encouragement and realism in our day to day politics and media that calls forth the best from our government and its people... not as spectators of some make-work BS 'survival show'... not as some kind of politically unintegrated and detached American Idol 'critic's empowerment seminar'... and not as spectators at all, really...
...for we must be able participants in our Democracy... our Economy... and our Cultural pursuits...
I'm just trying to remind you that there is a significant amount of greatness in being an American... but we have allowed ourselves to be 'talked out' of pursuing it.
-end of rant-
Posted by ttr at 01/28/2009 @ 9:37pm
Odd, pure progressive Laura Flanders isn't happy....
but neither are our local Righties!?!??!?? Especially "Investment King" HAPPY???
Posted by Mask at 01/28/2009 @ 9:56pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 01/28/2009 @ 7:19pm
My, if that isn't the mentally retarded pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by TexasFlood at 01/28/2009 @ 10:49pm
And who would have ever guessed that Barack Obama doesn't ACTUALLY care about lobbyist scum?
We wouldn't want to actually condemn the man for something, that if a republican prez did, we would all be screeching about as if it were the end of the civilized world.
Please people, be honest with yourselves, if not the rest of the world.
Posted by TexasFlood at 01/28/2009 @ 10:53pm
One must give credit where credit is due....Wall St. gave to the Demos in `08 and made the absolute right call for themselves...and Goldman is the best of the best strategizers in managing politically-directed money!
I guess we should be HAPPY that this month, Wall St. gave itself ONLY 1/2 of the bonuses it parceled out for `07!
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/28/2009 @ 8:43pm
Gee! If they were only able to strategize in managing their own finances enough to know that they shouldn't buy up bad loans like it was going out of style (funny enough, it WAS going out of style).
Keep sucking that dick though. I'm sure it's delicious.
Sometimes I forget we have our own Warren Buffet posting here.
Posted by TexasFlood at 01/28/2009 @ 10:57pm
Congress needs to reduce the high limits on campaign donations. For example,an individual can write a check to the Democratic National Committee for $28000 and give it to his lobbyist who will convey a message with the check.Lets lower the maximum total to$5000 for all individual donations.
Posted by worker-bee at 01/29/2009 @ 12:06am
To paraphrase a famous Supreme Court commentary, Abington v. Schempp, regarding the Establishment Clause:
What is directly prohibited should not be indirectly permitted, lest the "lobbyist" restriction become a mockery.
Posted by Gene Garman at 01/29/2009 @ 12:56am
(and yes, they were ALL MEN) who dared to vote against The Messiah, aka Magic!-----Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 01/28/2009 @ 11:37pm
"I'll repost this and let it sink in a bit.....about the state of our country and the general lack of respect toward authority and of course, BDS!"----Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/26/2008 @ 11:45am
Posted by Mask at 01/29/2009 @ 08:57am
"Obama's Better Bailout
Robert Scheer: He's off to a good start, but it's up to ordinary people who are hurting in this economy, to make sure the Obama bailout benefits them."
Hmmm sans the limit of the ordinary alone ... the non-ordinary should also be engaged in this most worthy and critical of endeavors. It will now be seen how well, and how so, the debacle of the last eight years has matured this republic of ours. To see who has the stronger voice, the most coherent focus as they engage the person voted into the highest (public) office in the land. For to be sure the Sachs end of the "political" spectrum will waste (has wasted...) neither time nor expense to have their will be done.
So, no, the potential represented by Obama's victory will not be dropped into our collective laps, it will have to be fought for. I do not see how it could be otherwise. As I said, we will now have an electorate actively engaged in the collective shape of their lives, or see if they (tragically...) voted for daddy to make it all better while they sleep, continue to get the "screws" tightened and sent to bed without supper.
Posted by V at 01/29/2009 @ 09:39am
Posted by TexasFlood at 01/28/2009 @ 10:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you got masculinity issues? seek help.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/29/2009 @ 10:06am
Where is my relief in this skillet full of pork, sizzling right before our very one eyes. Just think trillions have been spent and they want more. Is this some kind of economic black hole. The trillions spent and no one is accountable, blackcoptermedia.com is worth checking out. Now 850 billion on what? Both parties us their same tired old talking points. I decide on how to get my cut of the pie run for the senate or the house. Put them on trial, a pot smoker serves more time than a corporate criminal, I guess I'll create a business, run it into the ground and get my millions of bail out money so, I can buy, Marlon Brandos, Island in Taihiti. Nothing going to change!
Posted by thesid at 01/29/2009 @ 11:25am
why don't we just put the stimulus package off budget, like we did the wars?
Posted by emile duBois at 01/29/2009 @ 12:52pm
Posted by emile duBois at 01/29/2009 @ 12:52pm
I'd agree with this if the pork-saturated "stimulous" packet wasn't so significantly greater in costs than Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam combined!
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/29/2009 @ 1:40pm
Posted by OneVote at 01/28/2009 @ 6:44pm
Thought you might enjoy Paul Craig Roberts over at CounterPunch today:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01292009.html
Roberts is very succinct, gets right to the heart of things. Like you, I've saved him a seat for the show trials.
Posted by john lowell at 01/29/2009 @ 3:30pm
It isn't just that former lobbyist are being hired for key jobs by Cabinet secretaries. Obama is doing it himself.
Twenty-one of Obama's own appointments have, according to USA TODAY, been previously registered as federal lobbyists. Those include White House aide Cecilia Muñoz, who lobbied last year for the National Council of La Raza and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who lobbied in 2007 for a national teachers union.
As to Goldman Sachs, it is not making a comeback, it never went away. It changed from an investment bank to a bank holding company. While that was a substantial shift in the kind of business it does, it remains a giant stuffed with top talent. Its people will continue to be drawn on to fill top positions.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/29/2009 @ 6:47pm