The deep financial connections between Goldman Sachs and the Democratic Party have been well publicized, but this report puts them in a relevant perspective:
President Bush’s connections to Enron were well-hyped during the company’s accounting debacle that rippled through the economy. Time magazine even had an article called, “Bush’s Enron Problem.” The Associated Press ran with the headline, “Bush-backing Enron makes big money off crisis.” David Callaway wrote that Enron for Bush was worse than Whitewater for Clinton.
In 2002, the New York Times wrote: “President Bush is seeking to play down his relationship with Enron’s embattled chairman, Kenneth L. Lay. But their ties are broad and deep and go back many years, and the relationship has been beneficial to both.” (h/t Lachlan Markey)
But the mere $151,722.42 (inflation adjusted) in contributions from Enron-affiliated executives, employees, and PACs to Bush hardly add up to Obama’s $1,007,370.85 (inflation adjusted) from Goldman-affiliated executives and employees. That’s also not taking into account how much Goldman contributed to Obama cabinet member Hillary Clinton ($415,595.63 inflation adjusted), which was itself almost three times as much as Bush received as well.
It would be fair to say that the total amount the Obama administration has received from those affiliated with Goldman Sachs is ten times that of what Bush received from Enron.
All that appears to be missing is a pet name for Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein. And check this out:
Politico quoted a Goldman lobbyist Monday saying, “We’re not against regulation. We’re for regulation. We partner with regulators.” At least three times in Goldman’s conference call Tuesday, spokesmen trumpeted the firm’s support for more federal control.
It’s called “crony capitalism”. Fat cats who can afford to bribe the government make out like bandits, while at the same time squeezing out less powerful competitors.
Small to medium sized investors and investment firms will likely end up taking the brunt of new financial market regulations, while financial powerhouses like Goldman Sachs will have their seat at the head of the investment table permanently secured.
Remind me again which political party is supposed to always favor big business?
_______________________________________________
More on Obama’s Goldman Sachs cronys from Michelle Malkin.
There’s also this, from Prof. William Jacobson:
As tempting as it is to say “to hell with Goldman Sachs,” remember the saying about “first they came for ….”
Goldman is not the first they came for. This administration already has emasculated the entire private health insurance industry, brought the health of hundreds of millions of people under its regulatory control through Obamacare, and demonized as racists and extremists law-abiding patriotic Americans who spoke out for individual freedom and constitutional federalism.
The pharmaceutical industry was evil until it cut a deal and bought advertising in support of Obamacare, and doctors were greedy — as they performed unnecessary surgeries so they could bill more — until the AMA joined the Obama chorus. One center of power after another fell in line in the year-long push for Obamacare.
If the administration gets its way on cap-and-trade, the government will control through regulation virtually all industry through industry’s lifeblood, the consumption of carbon-based energy.
State autonomy also is dwindling, and those who point out that the federal government is limited to enumerated powers are derided as “Tenthers.”
There are few remaining entities which can stand up to the overweening encroachment of the federal government.
Taking down the leading, and in many ways last remaining, Wall Street powerhouse will remove yet another center of private industry power.
The serial removal of centers of power outside the federal government in Washington, D.C. is a worrisome trend which becomes more difficult to reverse as the dominoes fall.
Don’t wish too hard for the demise of Goldman Sachs. Because Goldman Sachs is not the end game.
