Hank Paulson: Corrupt Conflict of Ineterest in Wall Street Bailouts

Never doubt me.  This blog even anticipates, and gets confirmed by, the New York Times.  How many conservatives can say that.

 

What have I been saying since this Paulson bailout bill first surfaced?  I have been telling you that Paulson (Treasury Secretary since 2006, after beind CEO of Goldman Sachs) is a massive failure with a massive conflict of interest, since he is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs (the Wall Street frim that stands to benefi--perhaps benefit most--from a Wall Street bailout.  I told you that Paulson is a corrupt failure, who should have been fired.   He should still be fired. Yes, this has been confirmed by the New York Times.

 

Remember the AIG bailout that occurred right before the larger Paulson bailout/extortion/panic plan was revealed?  It turns out that there was a meeting at the New York Federal Reserve over that bailout (85 billion dollar loan, if you recall).  There was only one private firm who had a representative at that meeting:  Goldman Sachs, Paulson's firm.

 

Paulson was a prime player in bailing out AIG.  But was it AIG Paulson was interested in bailing out, or was it Goldman Sachs?  It turns out that Goldman Sachs had a 20 billion dollar monetary exposure to AIG.  In other words, if AIG went under, it would potentially cost Goldman Sachs 20 billion dollars.

 

So when Paulson described the bailout as "necessary" to protect the financial system, he was talking about his old firm, Goldman Sachs (the only private firm invited to that meeting on AIG).  Can you get any more corrupt than that.  Yet, I told you about the Paulson conflict of interest without even knowing specifically about the AIG conflict of interest. 

 

I also told you why Paulson escaped the Democratic criticism his conflict of interest would ordinarily have provoked.  As I told you, Paulson is basically a Democrat--certainly philosophically--and comes from a firm with substantial connections in the Democratic Party.  This includes the present Democratic governor of New Jersey, who preceded Paulson as CEO of Goldman Sachs.  Democrats were not interested in savaging one of their own, especially when he had proposed a massive increase in government power of the type beloved by Democrats.  Further, he was proposing to bail out all of those Democratson Wall Street, and in big business with taxpayer money.  Those are Paulson's friends.  The New York Times story shows that Paulson protects his friends.  The lack of vicious Democratic criticism shows that Democrats reciprocate the favor.  Paulson is similar to Mike Bloomberg of New York City:  a leftist sailing under Republican colors.

 

I told you all of this before the New York Times article.  The New York Times article does indicate that leftists may be about to throw Paulson under the bus--having got all of the use out of him they can.

 

It remains that I was correct.  Paulson is a corrupt failure, and he should be, and have been, fired rather than put in charge of "bailing out his friends on Wall Street.

 

P.S.  Yes, I know many Republicans have friends on Wall Street too.  See my earlier entry today on how so many of our "establishments" think the same, and are similarly contemptuous of ordinary people.  I suggested they all be sent to Australia, since we probably can't shoot them.  I would prefer to hang Paulson, but bow to humanitarian objections in merely demanding that he be fired in humiliation and disgrace.  Then maybe he and Goldman Sachs should be sued.  You might remember that Warren Buffet, another billionaire Democrat, put 5 billion dollars into Goldman Sachs shortly after Paulson helped out Goldman Sachs (by bailing out AIG)--the weekend after this bailout plan was revealed.