Obamaâ€™s Minions Making Millions
By: Michael John McCrae
Two articles from Financial Timesâ€™ website display amazing disparities between those selected to work for Obamaâ€™s administration and those who are dependent upon the largess of liberal socialist millionaires.
The first article entitled: â€œGeithner aides made millions on Wall Street, by Tom Braithwaite in Washington , Published: October 14 2009â€ begins: â€œObama administration officials now working on fixing and regulating the financial system were beneficiaries of several million dollars in pay from Wall Street and private equity companies, it has been revealed.â€
The article then goes on to explain the earnings of several individuals hired by Obama to support tax cheat Tim Geithner in the destruction of the American economy. Mr. Gene Sperling (2.2 million dollars), Mr. Matthew Kabaker (5.8 million dollars), Mr. Louis Alexander (2.4 million dollars) and Mr. Lawrence Summers (5.2 million dollars) all made these millions in over the past two years. They are so-called â€œadvisorsâ€ and â€œcounselorsâ€ which, according to the article are â€œappointmentsâ€: â€œ…meaning they escaped Senate confirmation hearings which could have highlighted their past remuneration and employment at a time of heightened animosity towards the financial industry.â€
In other words, their incomes were not scrutinized as other company CEOâ€™s to be taxed at 90 percent for being over-compensated for their work. All these men are affiliated with tax cheat Tim Geithner. From the article: â€œEarlier this month the release of the telephone call logs of Tim Geithner…showed he had numerous conversations with a number of Wall Street executives, sparking allegations that the administration was too close to the industry.â€
Obamaâ€™s administration defended these calls saying: â€œOfficials argued… that it was important to have skilled people working for the government as it crafted complicated financial rescues and for Mr Geithner to communicate with financial sector executives. Mr Geithner, the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, has never worked on Wall Street.â€
On the surface this would be a valid argument. If Tim Geithner is that inexperienced in the workings of Wall Street, it would be wise for him to contact Wall Street executives to gain some smarts. But now these people he spoke with have taken their Wall Street monies and have gone to work for the same administration that was condemning Wall Street not too long ago. Obama was quoted: â€œWe will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses,â€ he said at a speech in New York last month.â€ And yet these several men with their â€œbloated bonusesâ€ are rewarded further with government appointments without â€œsenate confirmationâ€ or investigation.
Even in this all would be fine if the advice and the actions of Treasury were actually working to stimulate the economy and create jobs. But nothing thatâ€™s been done by the likes of Geithner or any of these â€œadvisorsâ€ has improved the economic situation. Unemployment is very close to ten percent and the budget deficit is pointed at 1.6 trillion dollars just this year alone. It has taken these millionaires only a few months to place the entire American population in danger of a failed economy with double digit unemployment and threatened inflation.
Now comes the band-aid in the form of a check for $250. People who spend one hundred times that amount to have dinner with the President for one evening will be giving $250 (maybe) to 57 million Americans (maybe). The second article was: â€œObama calls for 57m to get $250 chequesâ€, by Sarah Oâ€™Connor, Published: October 15, 2009 â€œ which begins: â€œBarack Obama, US president, has asked Congress to stump up $13bn to extend a plank of the US stimulus package into next year in the form of cheques to veterans, retirees and the disabled.â€
Will a check for $250 cover even 20 percent of the increased costs forecasted under Obamaâ€™s â€œCap and Tradeâ€ legislation? Will a check for $250 help to defray even 20 percent of the increased costs levied by health insurance companies should the nationalized health care bill being negotiated in Congress become law? Well, the answer there is â€œNoâ€.
The last time the government issued $250 checks to Americans it did very little to stimulate anything economically. Issuing checks to a percentage of Americans has not worked any time itâ€™s been tried. (RE: The definition of insanity.)
The lies are in place however. From the article: â€œSome 55m people received $250 (â‚¬166, Â£156) â€œeconomic recovery paymentsâ€ this year as part of the $787bn stimulus…[Obamaâ€™s] administration is also pushing to extend the stimulus billâ€™s unemployment and health insurance benefits into 2010. â€œThese payments will provide aid to more than 50m people in the coming year, relief that will not only make a difference for them but for our economy as a whole,â€ Mr Obama said yesterday of the $250 cheques.â€
The point is that the last time checks were issued there was no appreciable boost to the economy. This time will be no different even though the â€œhopeâ€ is there. Will the $250 check make up the difference in 2010 for the increases in tax rates that will occur when Obamaâ€™s administration allows the Bush tax cuts to expire? Again, the answer will be â€œNoâ€.
Then you have to question this piece of vocal gibberish: â€œâ€œIn this case weâ€™re providing temporary essential help to people as an extension to the Recovery Act,â€ [a senior administration official] said. â€œWe plan to work with Congress to discuss financing, but the president is not going to go into those discussions insisting that this be paid for.â€
In other words, this will be 13 billion dollars of additional deficit spending on a budget already 1.6 trillion dollars in the red. It makes no sense.
So the millionaires continue to pile into Washington as advisors and counselors; probably all making six-figure salaries for their expert advice on stimulus that isnâ€™t stimulating and an economy in the tank. Cap and Trade and National Health care yet to begin stealing more money from already overburdened taxpayers; while the non-taxpayers standing with their hands out for government assistance; waiting for Obama to pay off mortgages and hand out checks. What is the primary argument on Capitol Hill? Should Rush Limbaugh be allowed to own part of the St. Louis Rams?