With the passing of the financial regulatory bill by the Senate, and Obama’s signing it (likely by next Wednesday), a new government entity will be set up, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
The person responsible for this idea is Harvard Law Professor and TARP oversight person, Elizabeth Warren. But Huffington Post reports in at least two articles (including a lead one yesterday) that Warren’s appointment for this position is opposed by none other than Timothy Geithner. See “Obama Praises Elizabeth Warren But States ‘There are Other Candidates As Well’ To Lead CFPB” at Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/16/obama-admin-praises-eliza_n_649224.html
We all remember Geithner, W’s pick for head of the New York Fed who fell asleep at the wheel during the financial crisis. Despite that, he parlayed his failures into becoming Treasury Secretary under Obama and along with W’s Paulson, Geithner and Obama fashioned TARP. That gave trillions to banks and Wall St. including to Goldman Sachs, where Geither worked with former Goldman Sachs CEO Robert Rubin.
Both the Associated Press and Huffington Post are reporting that while Obama is praising Warren (who wouldn’t) he is also considering two other people for the job mentioned. One of them is Michael Barr, who works in the Treasury Department under, you guessed it, Timothy Geithner.
From the AP:
A person familiar with the White House deliberations said Obama is also giving serious consideration to Michael Barr, an assistant treasury secretary who has been one of the architects of the administration’s regulatory plan, and Eugene Kimmelman, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s antitrust division. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are ongoing.
It turns out that Barr also has ties to former Goldman Sachs chief Robert Rubin: he was an assistant to Rubin. Rubin and Goldman Sachs basically own Obama. Goldman Sachs was the biggest contributor to both Obama as a senatorial candidate and also to his presidential campaign. Rubin was also a huge donor. Note too that Geithner himself is a Goldie and also worked with Rubin.
Obama’s ties to Rubin and Goldman Sachs go back at least as far as April, 2006, when Obama made the opening speech at the Hamilton Project. It is funded by Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs. In his speech, then Senator Obama paid lavish tribute to “my friend Bob” [Rubin] and called for more NAFTA-like “free trade” pacts (making a sham of his supposed anti NAFTA position in the Democratic primaries in 2008). Obama also called for more outsourcing of jobs overseas. Critically too, he called for cuts to entitlements (meaning social security). That is Robert Rubin, Goldman Sachs, and the Hamilton Project’s real agenda.
For more on the Hamilton Project, see “Obama’s Smoking Gun: His Hamilton Project Speech” at http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17984
Note that as President, Obama has set up a supposed “Deficit Reduction Commission” whose real purpose is to gut social security. He nominated at least two board members, Alice Rivlin (who also has ties to the Hamilton Project) and Anne Fudge (ditto) who are in favor of privatizing social security. Both Obama and his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, have a huge grudge against progressives who they fight against while attempting to “deal” with the GOP. That’s why Rahm swears at progressives all the time. That’s why Obama has essentially frozen progressives out of his administration favoring Blue Dog Democrats (like Ken Salazar), political hacks (Joe Biden) and Republicans (Robert Gates). That’s why Obama & Rahm are engaged in a battle with a real progressive, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, over the financial “reform” bill. Feingold says the bill is too weak. Feingold also called out Obama on his “health insurance” reform bill, calling it the bill that Obama essentially wanted: meaning a program that strengthens insurers but does little for average Americans. That’s why Obama disagrees with David Obey on Afghanistan and on budgeting more for teachers, not wars.
Back to Elizabeth Warren now. She is a lady of immense intellect and integrity and has zero ties to Rubin, Goldman Sachs and the Hamilton Project. But Michael Barr does because as noted, he worked as Rubin’s assistant.
Barr is connected through his Rubin-Geithner connections to Goldman Sachs while Elizabeth Warren is a threat to those very substantial economic and financial interests. Guess who will get this job? Expect either an outright nomination of Barr (with a few statements to the effect that yes, Warren would have been a good choice but they couldn’t get her nomination through the Senate). Or, expect Warren to get appointed by Obama (since she is so well known and connected to this idea) but Obama will treat her nomination exactly like Dawn Johnsen’s: left to twist in the wind. After it languishes, he will then select Barr.
I hope you are wrong but I suspect you are right and Geithner will succeed getting a Goldman Sachs crony in the post.
Yes, KnightErrant, Warren deserves the post and is the most qualified by Barr will likely get selected. The problem is not only Geithner, it is the man who chose and steadfastly supports him–Obama.
You say: “Rubin and Goldman Sachs basically own Obama. Goldman Sachs was the biggest contributor to both Obama as a senatorial candidate and also to his presidential campaign. Rubin was also a huge donor. Note too that Geithner himself is a Goldie and also worked with Rubin.”
This is the sort of shit that just reminds me of the tripe coming from the right wing. Ever think about the proportion of donations from GS to Obama compared to the total contributions? Ever think that some of the personal donations by employees of GS might be something to so with their personal politics rather than as proxies for the firm they work for? I work for a big firm but any political contribution I make is on my own behalf not on their behalf.
Btw, Geithner – for all the criticism from progressives – has NEVER worked for Goldman Sachs, so I don’t know what you mean by saying he is a “Goldie” too. In fact, he has spent the majority of his life IN PUBLIC SERVICE not becoming a multi millionaire working for a bank or a financial institution.
I mean, if you really think that GS owns Barack Obama what is the fucking point in saying anything? No wonder Obama and Rahm disdain you sort of liberals or so-called “progressives”.
Although Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs, HOMERUK, he did work for Robert Rubin, its former CEO. He is a Rubin protege and Rubin is the key link to Goldman Sachs. Note that Goldman Sachs and Rubin together have jointly (and almost soley) funded the Hamilton Project which is also connected to Obama.
I’m a progressive Democrat, not from the right, and believe me, lots of other progressives and liberals think that Obama’s ties are far to cozy with the Goldman Sachs firm. Read any Matt Taibbi? You should look at it and Paul Street’s background information on Obama. Your individual contributions to a candidate are not what I’m talking about: he received a sizable figure from Goldman Sachs itself. It has really paid off. Larry Summers and Geithner in high economic positions, and at least 50 other Goldies in there too. The head of the SEC antitrust division that just settled with Goldman used to work for them. Moreover, one of Goldman’s biggest competitors, Lehman Brothers, was put out of business because they got nothing from TARP whereas Goldman got billions. Cozy relationship isn’t it. Ex regulator William Black has said that political campaign contributions give the biggest payback. They certainly have for Goldman Sachs and Rubin in the Obama administration.
Please do get your facts right.
The head of the SEC antitrust division had nothing to do with the GS settlement – that was the SEC enforcement division, namely Khuzami who – although he was general counsel for Deutsche Bank – was never employed by GS. Or perhaps you are thinking of deputy director Reisner? again no connection to GS.
You refer to the Hamilton Project as if it were a conspiracy of evil when a short internet search shows absolutely nothing of the kind. Membership or work for the Hamilton Project does not indicate one policy or another. http://www.brookings.edu/projects/hamiltonproject/experts.aspx. For example, Hacker, the godfather of the beloved public option is a staff member.
On contributions, I looked at open secrets – http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2006&cid=N00009638&type=I – again right there on the internet. It told me that contributions from Goldman Sachs for Obama’s senatorial campaing totalled about $60,000 – none of it from PAC money. That is 12th on the list of contributors.
For President, GS employees (not the firm itself) gave just under $1 million – out of a total of $750 million raised. The idea that this amounts to some outsized influence is just absurd and when you say he got a sizeable chunk from Goldman Sachs, that is just incorrect. I urge you to look at opensecrets for the real facts not just Taibbi’s rants (which, btw, I read and found similarly unconvincing).
A lot of progressives and/or liberals may be lazy enough to think the same thing that you do, but that doesn’t mean they are right. The funny thing is that on another post you are praising Clinton (B) to high heavens in comparing him with Obama when in fact the main complaint you seem to have is that Obama has appointed some former officials from the Clinton administration!
Oh and finally, – and really you should know this seeing as though you are obviously a serious political commentator, Obama did not have anything to do with organising, developing or constructing TARP
or the decision to let Lehman’s go bust, or really anything prior to him getting inaugurated, save that he supported President Bush making the right decision to inject a massive amount of money to shore up the financial industry which at the time risked a massive implosion and threatened America from its core.
All that he’s done since getting elected is averted a great depression, invested massively in clean energy and infrastructure, ensured that 30 million more people have access to healthcare, enshrined the ability to sue for sexual discrimination, allowed HIV partners to enter the US, directed the EPA to regulate carbon, institute new regulations on financial institutions including imposing an entirely new consumer protection agency. That may not be enough for you but you know it should be enough that you think twice before you write exceedingly stupid things like “Rubin and Goldman Sachs own Obama”.
Enjoyed your comeback, although it never got to the point. Specifically, you haven’t answered the main question this diary poses and itself answers: Why will Obama NOT APPOINT Elizabeth Warren?
well i didn’t think it was much point responding to a pointless hypothetical.
Total amount contributed by Goldman Sachs to the Obama campaign in 2008: $994,795. NOTE: Opensecrets does indicate this amount comes not from the organization but from its PAC’s and individual members and employees. But do you really think the floor sweepers at Goldman Sachs gave this amount of money? Do you think almost a million bucks was given and nothing expected in return? Do you not think it odd that so many Goldman people are in the Obama government. Glenn Greenwald has written that there are more Goldman people serving in regulatory positions in the government than there are at Goldman Sachs!
But it’s not hypothetical, it’s a fact pattern. Note how few, if any, real progressives are in the Obama administration. People like Howard Dean have been frozen out, not even considered. Others, like Dawn Johnsen were “appointed” but her appointment was left to twist in the wind with no real support. Obama’s done the same thing for several different federal judges (Louis Butler a qualified black man amongst them). You call this treatment and freezing out of progressives hypothetical? Keep you head in the sand, dude.
7. You fail also in your rant to look at Lehman Brothers–the way it was treated and Goldman was treated. Lehman was frozen out of TARP; Goldman got billions. Lehman was a major competitor to Goldman. So who got favorable treatment?
by the way i clicked your link to fdl and surprise surprise it was a link to another one of YOUR rants on fdl. Doesn’t support anything. The speech Obama gave to the Hamilton Project was extremely vague and yet you draw some nefarious conclusions because he called Bob Rubin a friend and praised the group. I mean, he’s a politician so he’s not likely to get up there and say “this is for all you motherfuckers out there!”. He does say that he wouldn’t agree with every idea they had, though but that’s probably a bit too nuanced for you.
Homeruk,
You are the one who is distorting facts. I challenge any reader her to follow the link to Obama’s speech at the Hamilton Project and see it as vague. Obama:
This whole agenda: more free trade pacts, outsourcing,cuts in entitlements form the entire basis for the Hamilton Project. It is, by the way, pretty much funded solely by Robert Rubin and the firm you defend so strongly, Goldman Sachs. Those are the facts.
Note too that Obama has taken up the call for entitlements by setting up his Budget Deficit Reduction Commission. He has appointed at least 2 people (both with Hamilton Project connections) Alice Rivlin and Anne Fudge who are not only proponents of entitlement cuts but of privatizing social security.
Obama’s ties to Rubin and Goldman Sachs go back at least as far as April, 2006, when Obama made the opening speech at the Hamilton Project. It is funded by Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs.
While all that might be true, the Hamilton Project really is one of the pet projects of Pete Peterson.
Thanks for that Calvin Jones. While Peterson and his foundation may have supported the Hamilton Project, Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs were its founders and provided starting funding for it.
From a David Sirota piece on the founding of the Hamilton Project:
“As the Financial Times reports, Citigroup Chairman Bob Rubin held a press conference at the Brookings Institution to announce the formation of the so-called “Hamilton Project. …hes his corporatism. Remember, it was Rubin during the debate over the Central American Free Trade Agreement who demanded that congressional Democrats back off their efforts to include labor, human rights and environmental protections in the pact. He and his pals are the same people who rammed trade deals like NAFTA, WTO and China PNTR down the throats of Americans, and then left government service for the high life of the corporate boardroom. There, they reaped the rich financial rewards of the very sell-out policies they used public office to push, while millions of Americans saw their jobs outsourced, their wages frozen and their benefits slashed.
his corporatism. Remember, it was Rubin during the debate over the Central American Free Trade Agreement who demanded that congressional Democrats back off their efforts to include labor, human rights and environmental protections in the pact. He and his pals are the same people who rammed trade deals like NAFTA, WTO and China PNTR down the throats of Americans, and then left government service for the high life of the corporate boardroom. There, they reaped the rich financial rewards of the very sell-out policies they used public office to push, while millions of Americans saw their jobs outsourced, their wages frozen and their benefits slashed.” SEE:
http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/04/wall-street-dems-unveil-plan-to.html
Here’s another article that is highly informative on the Hamilton Project and its opening. http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/13/the-hamilton-project-same-corporatist-whine-in-new-dlc-vessels/
Geithner is not a Goldie. Look it up.
Geithner is a protege of Robert Rubin, former head of Goldman Sachs.
I know it’s pointless to respond to you with facts since you don’t appear to believe in them but to take your various comments:
When it comes to how a country as large as the US is run and the many many competing things the President has to deal with, I have extremely little time for whinging like that.
I will add this which is something that makes me quite angry whenever I hear the implication from the “progressive” sphere. It’s the idea that anyone who works at, say, Goldman Sachs or another large company cannot be a true progressive or liberal and must always adopt the value systems of his or her employer. That is simply not the case. I work for a very large multi national law firm. I am very liberal in my views. My office has liberals, conservatives, libertarians and people of all political and moral views. Much as I love working for my firm, my value system is not based on what would benefit my firm but on my value system. The idea, therefore, that someone who used to work at GS, or AIG or any other of the ‘evil’ corporations cannot be a dedicated and unbiased public servant is in my view corrosive, unfair and totally without merit. So, you don’t have to be a “janitor” at GS to be a liberal or to have donated to Obama – it may surprise you to know that some of the richest people in the US are liberal and democratic.
I guess that Goldman Sachs and BP are just full of bleeding heart liberals then. And so was Standard Oil when John D. Rockefeller was around.
Homeruk, your rant and this nonsense shows exactly what kind of tool you are if you believe this. I also have worked for large organizations (and law firms) and know that to get ahead in same, you have to know and play company policy. Look at our television networks. See much of a spectrum of opinion there? Look who is the head of BP and look at who is the head of Goldman Sachs and tell me they are bleeding hearts. You are completely out to lunch.
well, as it happens I know a lot of people who work at GS, Citi, JP Morgan et al and most of them are bleeding heart liberals. Some were there during 2008 and some have left subsequently. Some went to those companies for experience and training with the sole intention of taking that experience and training and doing something good with it. I haven’t ranted but answered your ridiculous assertions point by point and I see that you haven’t bothered to address them.
Sorry, I also know a lot of people who work for those corporations and almost all of them, perhaps upwards of 85%, are corporate douche bags. Ditto for the lawyers in big firms. No need to address your ridiculous assertions point by point since I have already done so.
If you are to be believed, why wasn’t corporate America fully behind a much tougher financial reform bill instead of fighting even this weak bill? Why did it favor doing away with Glass Steagall? Why if these huge corporations are stocked to the gills with “bleeding heart liberals” have so many fought tooth and nail against even limited environmental regulations? Why do most of these corporations hate government regulations at all and attempt to influence the regulators? You are simply ignoring 200 years of American history, sociology, law and political science.
Homeruk you wrote this: “…it may surprise you to know that some of the richest people in the US are liberal and democratic.” I’m not sure where you studied law, history, or politics but you missed the big story. Yes, “some of the richest people in the US” may be liberal and democratic but the PERCENTAGE of those people in comparison to their being highly conservative and Republic is overwhelming. Please do some reading in basic political science or history. For a lawyer, you are very, very loose with words (like “some”).