It’s hard to know whether to be outraged or yawn at the revelations that Henry Paulson with Bush’s Treasury talked constantly on the phone with the head of Goldman Sachs, probably in violation of every ethics rule on the books, during those bailout days. These rules are made to somehow clean up government and establish a ridiculously naive ideal that government can and must be constantly impartial in the pursuit of scientific public policy. Anyone schooled by the Nock-Rothbard perspective finds that point of view laughable, and revelations of the sort now reported by the New York Times to be commonplace. Discovering conflict of interest in government and this sort of grafty log-rolling is merely a matter of looking a bit beneath the surface.
I also find it fascinating how these revelations always seem to pertain to the last administration while the current administration always claims to have fixed the problem so that we can continue to move onward and upward into the light of perfect democracy. So far as I can tell, this endless game of pretending to improve stretches back to the 18th century.
Anyway, the goods that the NYT got are precious:
On the morning of Sept. 16, 2008, the day the A.I.G. rescue was announced, Mr. Paulson’s calendars show that he took a call from Mr. Blankfein at 9:40 a.m. Mr. Paulson received the ethics waiver regarding contacts with Goldman between 2:30 and 3 the next afternoon. According to his calendar, he called Mr. Blankfein five times that day. The first call was placed at 9:10 a.m.; the second at 12:15 p.m.; and there were two more calls later that day. That evening, after taking a call from President Bush, Mr. Paulson called Mr. Blankfein again.
When the Treasury secretary reached his office the next day, on Sept. 18, his first call, at 6:55 a.m., went to Mr. Blankfein. That was followed by a call from Mr. Blankfein. All told, from Sept. 16 to Sept. 21, 2008, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Blankfein spoke 24 times.
At the height of the financial crisis, Mr. Paulson spoke far more often with Mr. Blankfein than any other executive, according to entries in his calendars.
Are we supposed to believe that no one with Obama or Congress spoke with anyone in the car industry before “Cash for Clunkers?”
{ 10 comments }
“â€â€Mr. Paulson received the ethics waiver regarding contacts with Goldman between 2:30 and 3 the next afternoon.â€â€â€â€
Why did they not tell us earlier that Paulson had an “ethics waiverâ€. If I had known that he had an “ethics waiver†I would never have expected him to even pretend he had any ethics.
I expect that if someone checked we would find that all of Washington had “ethics waivers†in the pockets
Hmmm… if I deliberately plan on borrowing but never paying back my debts to the banks… that wouldn’t be ethical, right? So, where do I apply for my ethics waiver then? I feel I’d like to even the score a little… if the banks complain, I can just whip out the old trusty ethics waiver! Hey, I have an ethics waiver! That makes it ok!
BB
Are we supposed to believe that no one with Obama or Congress spoke with anyone in the car industry before “Cash for Clunkers?”
Are we to assume ‘independence’ by the Federal Reserve!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course the Fed’s independent – everybody else would have to answer for massive inflation.
LOL, an “ethics waiver”. How quaint.
The concept of an ethics waiver is absurd. That is as rediculous as an grand larceny waiver, albeit in this particular situation they seem to be one in the same.
LET ME UNDERSTAND THIS. BASICALLY, THE ETHICS WAIVER TELLS EVERYONE THAT MR PAULSON NO LONGER HAS TO BE ETHICAL. INTERESTING CONCEPT. BASICALLY, THE GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWING HIM TO DO ANYTHING UNETHICAL AND NOT BE PUNHISHED. CAN I GET ONE OF THESE WAIVERS.
John,
Really think so? Would you rather have the gov’t allow a member of the executive branch to discuss gov’t business with that members former employer OR would you rather have nobody know about it? More disclosure the better. Now of course I would like to know what they talked about prior to Paulson getting the waiver.
No surprise that “Cash for Clunkers” was meant to help GM and there were likely conversations between the White House and GM before the scheme was rolled out.
But people are not trading in their “clunkers” for GM’s. The top 5 cars acquired in this scheme are all Toyota’s and Honda’s.
As for the Paulson’s, they haven’t changed… Hank’s son Merritt, basically acting as Hank’s proxy, is getting millions of taxpayer dollars to renovate PGE Park in Portland, OR for their MLS expansion team despite a lot of opposition… he also wants $45 million taxpayer dollars to build a minor league baseball stadium, but he’s been turned down for that one in Portland and now has his eyes set on Beaverton. But a local family owns the land the city has designs on and they won’t sell.
I’m such a newb when it comes to this libertarian stuff…
This whole time I thought “Cash for Clunkers” was to appease the Green lobby. I guess that’s what happens when the Ref is playing in the game too.
Thanks Government Motors!
Comments on this entry are closed.