Sinkspur criticizing the GOP?
Posted on 05/30/2006 11:20:11 AM PDT by boryeulb
The Senate should reject President Bush’s nomination of Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson for Treasury secretary. Under Paulson’s leadership, Goldman Sachs participated in ethically, and perhaps legally, questionable business practices. Paulson also supports the economy-killing Kyoto Protocol and has demonstrated little respect for private property rights.
On the ethical front, Paulson has refused to answer questions about his apparent use of Goldman Sachs’ corporate assets to advance his personal interests. In 2002, Paulson used at least $35 million of shareholder money to help environmental groups stop a “sustainable forestry” project in Tierra del Fuego, Chile. Environmental groups had delayed the project for years—to the point where financial stress on the project developer became acute and forced the sale of the land. Goldman swept in and bought the land, promptly turning it over to Paulson’s environmental allies.
The environmental groups involved in the transaction included The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), the actual recipient of the land donation from Goldman Sachs. At the time of the transaction, Paulson was a member of the board of directors of TNC—after the transaction he was elevated to chairman. Paulson’s son is now listed on tax returns as a “trustee” of WCS’.
When I confronted Paulson with these accusations at the March 31, 2006, annual shareholder meeting, Paulson and Goldman Sachs attempted to deny the involvement of TNC in the “land steal.” At a very minimum, however, tax records indicate that Goldman Sachs paid TNC more than $144,000 in consulting fees related to the transaction. Moreover, the TNC acknowledges the WCS as one of its “organizational partners.”
On the legal front, the Washington Post reported just last week that Goldman Sachs participated in transactions with scandal-ridden Fannie Mae that “that improperly pushed $107 million of Fannie Mae earnings into future years. The aim, [said federal regulators], was always the same: To shape the company’s books, not in response to accepted accounting rules but in a way that made it appear that the company had reached earnings targets, thus triggering the maximum possible payout for executives…”
Aside from the potential ethical and legal issues surrounding Paulson, he has decidedly anti-economy and anti-property rights leanings.
Paulson supports economy-killing global warming regulation. Paulson transplanted TNC’s pro-Kyoto position into Goldman Sachs, an investment bank with no known expertise in climate science. Now Goldman Sachs not only supports greenhouse gas regulation, but has said it will lobby for such policies. No doubt this will be much easier, with Paulson as Treasury secretary.
Private property owners should also be unhappy with Paulson’s nomination. Paulson’s TNC is the world’s richest environmental group with $3 billion in assets and is a major opponent of private property rights.
A series of Washington Post articles in May 2003 exposed the Nature Conservancy as more than just a “land bank.” In the past it has also acted as a broker of too-sweet-to-be-true land and business deals for wealthy insiders and corporate supporters, often at taxpayer expense.
In one scheme reported by the Post, “…the Conservancy bought raw land, attached development restrictions and then resold the land to state trustees and other supporters at greatly reduced prices. Buyers then voluntarily gave the Conservancy charitable contributions roughly equivalent to the discounts, sums that were written off from the buyers’ federal income taxes. The deals generally allowed the buyers to build homes on the land.”
As Treasury secretary, Paulson will be in charge of the Internal Revenue Service. Should he be in charge of the government organization that has oversight over any tax problems that TNC might have?
With a Republican administration and Republican-controlled Congress in trouble for abandoning conservative principles and a scandal-ridden Washington, Hank Paulson as Treasury secretary is the wrong choice at the wrong time. Since the politically tone-deaf President Bush is unlikely to withdraw Paulson from consideration, it will be up to the Senate to do the right thing.
Mr. Milloy is executive director of the Free Enterprise Education Institute. He publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Sinkspur criticizing the GOP?
All of W's Treasury Secretaries have been from Business. Good, bad or indifferent...that's a fact. There's been no academics, theoreticians from the Conservative Movement, anyone from the halls of Congress, etc. No lawyers either. This should not have surprised anyone. W is a man from the world of Business who apparently feels it should be a Businessman (or woman).
What I've heard about the reaction to his prior picks is almost always, well, Wall Street wants to see one of their own there. That's why you need a Wall Streeter, Mr. President. For Corporate Confidence and especially for robust markets, get yourself someone from "the Street". Having not managed to do so until now, W has finally done that.
I'm saying zip, zero nada about this individual or about Goldman Sachs. I'll leave that to others who act like you know so much about it.
The President has spent time recently with Don Evans. And I'm sure they talk by secure phone all the time. No two men are closer both personally and professionally. I'm confident that if Evans refused the job, which he was rumoured to be offered, or if he was just asked his opinion, and he recommended this pick, the President would go for it. Right or wrong, unless someone else could talk him out of it.
I don't know what this man's views are on the issues important to Conservatives. But I do not believe he will hold any sway with the President's Domestic Economic Policy decisions and proposals. That is done in-house...in the White House...absolutely not at Treasury. Perhaps he won't be the best advocate if they aren't his own views, but if it's his job to be, he'd blank well better advocate to the hilt.
A final word: about all those possible candidates that WEREN'T selected. A person has to willingly take this job. Some people can be persuaded to take it anyway, to serve the country and the President. Others cannot be persuaded no matter WHAT. I have no doubt that Phil Gramm would never take this job, even if offered, even if begged. Not saying he was, but it's entirely possible others were asked and for obvious reasons, rationally and self-interestedly TURNED IT DOWN.
Cheer up. Look on the bright side and there's lots on that side to see.
Unless. You'd rather moan and wail and attack the President.
Not mentioning any particular FReepers by name...just speaking generally if the shoe fits.
Thanks for the ping. Good post!!
You're welcome.
Well, I think President Bush, had he been president in the 20th century, would have been one of what-- the top two or three presidents of the twentieth century, and although I disagree with his approach to immigration, I don't believe Mexican immigration is as important an issue as the WOT.... and I liked John Snow, myself.
But President Bush's economic policy is, like Larry Kudlow says, the greatest story never told... President Bush has had great ideas like the dividend tax cut but he and his administration have tended not to sell them with a supply side rationale, as President Reagan did. All I want is for President Bush to mostly continue on the same course he has, but communciate it the effectiveness of that course better. You know, get rid of static scoring. Put videos on the web of explanations from the oval office of your policies.
I understand the MSM is either Democrat or left of Democrat, excluding the editorial pages of a very few papers and even fewer news sections. But the economy is great--- screw gas prices! So why does the public not realize this? Something MUST be wrong in President Bush's communication strategy. I cannot accept that he is incapable of convincing people that down is not up and yes, Virginia, unemployment and the deficit are down.
Well, I just finished listening to the Roundtable talk about this nominee and they had nothing but praise for him and for Goldman Sachs. In fact, they said Goldman Sachs is considered (still, as I thought) the biggest player in the market, well respected and that this is considered a huge coup and something to brag about.
Yeah, but two are Dems (Kondrake and Easton) and Barnes is now labeled a RINO because of his illegal immigration views. What do they know? Besides, Schumer praised him. That settles it...time to impeach Bush. /sarcasm
SO TRUE!!!!!!! President Bush 41 gets so much crap on his economic policies for what for being in the middle of a brief correction. What bothers me about Rubin is that left liberal New Republic types aren't the only ones to overrate him-- some "conservative" types grant him guru status even though the guy hates tax cuts with a passion.
I'm sure that President Bush will now be getting the same credit for the shrinking deficit that Clinton/Rubin got...(sarc off)
LOL. You scared me there for a second :-)
I knew I had heard this guys name before. Guess what he is a big time gun banner. Big friend of the Bradys. Now as Sec of Treasuary that may not matter. Is there no qualified conservative out there somewhere.
That said, why can't we have a principled Treasury Secretary who is a strong advocate for economic freedom? I can't believe all the possible nominees are stodgy corporate types who are diffident about selling lower taxes, lower spending, and lower regulation.
I can only deduce, after the third loser (fourth counting Bush Sr's Brady) that it's because the President is not interested. Like his father, he apparently wants someone to help him "govern", not reform, ie, someone who will not rock the socialist ship of state as we cruise to the next (there's always a next one) election.
Sorry if my disappointment on this makes me hysterical, wailing etc. I credit President Bush for getting some good tax cuts through, but I expected much more.
It's funny how all Democrats are economic geniuses and all Republicans are idiots, even when they prescribe just the same things.
People like Corzine and Rubin walked away from Goldman,Sachs with HUNDREDS of MILLIONS!!!!!In the meantime,when Rubin was Treas. Sec. under His Slickness,he was TOTALLY against tax cuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank God this is STILL AMERICA and we can express opposition to the President in anything whatever that he says or does because we are protected by the Constitution!!!
God help a nation of YES-persons who are afraid to say what they really think because they may find the Gestapo at their front door!!!
Thank God this is STILL AMERICA and we can express opposition to the President in anything whatever that he says or does because we are protected by the Constitution!!!God help a nation of YES-persons who are afraid to say what they really think because they may find the Gestapo at their front door!!!
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Amen to Teddy Roosevelt!
Combine this with Porter Goss being FIRED after being talked into leaving the House Oversight...and bringing all his highly-knowledgeable staff with him to "clean house"... and THEN REHIRING the Liberal Rat Panda-Hugger, Stephen Kappes back to #2 at CIA...
And it looks like either the White House...either by its own design...or under the influence of some Machiavellian Fifth Columnist Mole inside the White House... is trying to undermine CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN OVERSIGHT of the CIA.
It is one or the other. You don't fire people who were getting it done. So much for "loyalty". Puts a new light on a lot of things about this President.
Agreed. And it isn't even an honest "appeasement" of the Moral base, notice how W never ever really shuts down Federal Funding of Abortion...but if you point out that W is not doing nearly as much thereto as RWR, you're the problem.
Paul - clear that up for me please, I'm not getting your point.
Here's a very interesting and telling article, well footnoted too. These facts just aren't mainstream knowledge, no one I know knows anything about it, just like most adults can't name all 3 branches of their own Govt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.