Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Washington-Wall Street Revolving Door Just Keeps Spinning Along
We’ve already made our choice for the best headline of the year, so far:
"Citigroup Replaces JPMorgan as White House Chief of Staff."
When we saw it on the website Gawker.com we had to smile -- but the smile didn’t last long. There’s simply too much truth in that headline; it says a lot about how Wall Street and Washington have colluded to create the winner-take-all economy that rewards the very few at the expense of everyone else.
President Barack Obama with new chief of staff Jack Lew, formerly of Citigroup (Photo: AP /Charles Dharapak)
The story behind it is that Jack Lew is President Obama’s new chief of staff -- arguably the most powerful office in the White House that isn’t shaped like an oval. He used to work for the giant banking conglomerate Citigroup. His predecessor as chief of staff is Bill Daley, who used to work at the giant banking conglomerate JPMorgan Chase, where he was maestro of the bank’s global lobbying and chief liaison to the White House.
Daley replaced Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who once worked as a rainmaker for the investment bank now known as Wasserstein & Company, where in less than three years he was paid a reported eighteen and a half million dollars.
The new guy, Jack Lew – said by those who know to be a skilled and principled public servant – ran hedge funds and private equity at Citigroup, which means he’s a member of the Wall Street gang, too. His last job was as head of President Obama’s Office of Management and Budget, where he replaced Peter Orzag, who now works as vice chairman for global banking at – hold onto your deposit slip -- Citigroup.
Still with us? It’s startling the number of high-ranking Obama officials who have spun through the revolving door between the White House and the sacred halls of investment banking. Sure, you can argue that it makes sense that the chief executive of the nation would look to other executives for the expertise you need to build back from the disastrous collapse of the banks in the final year of the Bush Administration.
Remember -- it was Bush and Cheney with their cronies in big business who helped walk us right into the blast furnace of financial meltdown, then rushed to save the banks with taxpayer money. That little fact seems to have been overlooked in the current primaries.
All this brings back memories of Hank Paulson, doesn’t it? Hank Paulson, the $700-million man who became secretary of the treasury for President Bush. Paulson had been head of Goldman Sachs, the rich investment bank. As his successor at Goldman Sachs, Paulson chose Lloyd Blankfein. Several times, according to Bloomberg News, Rolling Stone, and Paulson’s own memoir, the treasury secretary made sure Blankfein and Goldman got privileged inside information.
But Bush and Cheney aren’t the only ones to have a soft spot for financiers. President Obama may call bankers “fat cats” and stir the rabble against them with populist rhetoric when it serves his interest, but after the fiscal fiasco, he allowed the culprits to escape virtually scot-free. When he’s in New York he dines with them frequently and eagerly accepts their big contributions. Like his predecessors, his administration also has provided them with billions of taxpayer dollars – low-cost money that they used for high-yielding investments to make big profits. The largest banks are bigger than they were when he took office and earned more in the first two-and-a-half years of his term than they did during the entire eight years of the Bush administration. That’s confirmed by industry data.
And get this. It turns out, according to The New York Times, that as President Obama’s inner circle has been shrinking, his “rare new best friend” is Robert Wolf. They play basketball, golf, and talk economics when Wolf is not raising money for the president’s campaign.
Robert Wolf runs the US branch of the giant Swiss bank UBS, which participated in schemes to help rich Americans evade their taxes. During hearings in 2009, Michigan’s Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the permanent subcommittee on investigations, described some of the tricks used by UBS: “Swiss bankers aided and abetted violations of U.S. tax law by traveling to this country with client code names, encrypted computers, counter- surveillance training, and all the rest of it, to enable U.S. residents to hide assets and money in Swiss accounts.
“The bankers then returned to Switzerland and treated their conduct as blameless since Swiss law says tax evasion is no crime. The Swiss bank before us deliberately entered United States, actively sought U.S. clients and secretly helped those U.S. clients defraud the United States of America.”
And so it goes, the revolving door between government service and big money in the private sector spinning so fast it becomes an irresistible force hurling politics and high finance together so completely it’s impossible to tell one from the other.



39 Comments so far
Show AllThank you Charles Dharapak.
Trylon
Obama didn't just "ALLOW the culprits to escape scot free", his actions and legislation ENABLED them to escape scot free, AND according to page 131 of the US Government's General Accountability Office Report # GAO 11-696, Obama put US taxpayers on the hook for $16 trillion to further enrich "the culprits". Obama has assured the banksters that their license to steal will have no expiration date.
When you add the corporate welfare program for insurance and pharma industries known as Obamacare, you realize that the "revolving door" has become a high speed conveyor delivering taxpayers' money to corporations.
I can not agree more with your comments. The issue here is not about right or left. It is about right or wrong. For the last 3 years, Obama has proven himself to be a money-chaser.
Ummmm..what?
What does "On the hook" mean?
There is no "door" which separates Wall Street from Washington.
There is no "revolving".
It is like saying that the bank tellers work outside the bank.
Can we please drop the delusions?
Agreed.
Ayuh. I used to think of it as more of a high-speed conveyor, but even that implies at least minor obstacles of time and space.
Now, it seems more like the Star Trek transporter, with crew members like Daley and Lew able to simply materialize when and where required.
Well, one does appear at work in different places in the morning. Though dropping in at one office and then at another may all be part of the day's rounds. Not to mention stops at restaurants, clubs, and various social events. Nor should we leave out bar mitzvas and christenings. Graduations and marriages and funerals as a new generation takes over. We should feel comfy and cozy, after all, since we have "the best government money can buy." The analogy the authors employ doesn't bother me, at any rate. They do tell their drivers to take them to different addresses when they go to work in the morning. And the analogy's wording emphasizes the irony, not to quibble.
You've got that right:)
i don't think the revolving door is the proper metaphor any longer - its more like moving from the couch to the sofa in the same apartment
now that we are fascists (merged state and corporation) we see industry writing laws that affect them to their benefit at the cost of society
except of course the banking/financial sector that is totally unregulated
but the best new example is chris dodd - now the chief lobbyist for MPAA - can you say sopa and pipa
"Former Connecticut senator Chris Dodd is the new head of the Motion Picture Association of America, joining the growing ranks of ex-lawmakers in the influence industry."
"Dodd, a former chairman of the Senate banking committee, served three decades in Congress before retiring in January. As banking chairman, he played a crucial role in recent legislation regulating the financial services industry.
Dodd succeeds Dan Glickman, a former secretary of Agriculture, as the movie industry's voice in Washington."
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/03/chris-dodd-lobbying-motion-picture-association/1
then dodd goes on national tv to threaten senators who didn't support sopa with denial of contributions
"Remember the SOPA drama last week? It has given MPAA not-quite-lobbyist Chris Dodd a bad case of foot-in-mouth: he publicly threatened politicians who’d taken MPAA money for not doing what the MPAA wanted. On national television, no less.
Un-freakin’-believable. And just this side of actually criminal. Dodd is a former senator — he should know that the money-for-votes relationship is illegal, and must remain an unspoken truth. Now he’s confirmed what everyone knew was the case, but had no evidence for: that SOPA/PIPA were written by the entertainment industry, and that that industry considers its donations to be bribes and expects the laws they want to be passed because of them.
(Hint, Mr. Dodd: the polite fiction is that campaign donations are no-strings-attached gifts, presumably because the politician in question has views compatible with the gift-giver and the gift-giver wants to help ensure that the politician is elected. Crossing that line is illegal. I shouldn’t have to be telling you this.)"
http://geekblog.oakcircle.com/
how brazen is that
or how about this:
"The tough job market doesn't seem to be hurting many former members of Congress. Less than three months after leaving Capitol Hill, a dozen have found work so far with groups that seek to influence their former colleagues, despite rules that impose restrictions on lobbying once they leave office.
Former House members can't lobby federal lawmakers for one year after serving in Congress; senators have a two-year "cooling off" period. However, they can work for lobbying firms, trade associations and consulting groups to provide behind-the-scenes advice to clients on the ways of Washington.
"I'm like the puppeteer," said Charles Melancon, a former Louisiana congressman who started work this month as senior vice president of government relations for the International Franchise Association"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-02-22-revolvingdoor22_ST_N.htm
move on folks....nothing to see here....
"i don't think the revolving door is the proper metaphor any longer - its more like moving from the couch to the sofa in the same apartment "
No it's a prescribed career path.
"now that we are fascists (merged state and corporation) we see industry writing laws that affect them to their benefit at the cost of society,
except of course the banking/financial sector that is totally unregulated
but the best new example is chris dodd - now the chief lobbyist for MPAA - can you say sopa and pipa"--medmedude
are you sure? just how many of these symptoms of infectuous fasciphobia can we identify?
strong nationalism: constant display of patriotic mottos, slogans and symbols.
military strength: glorification of war and those in uniform.
disproportionately large military budget at the expense of domestic needs.
indentify an enemy: a common foe to unify.
disdain for human rights.
controlled media : the framing of “public discourse” in few hands.
obsession with national security : overly concerned over “illegal” (?) aliens.
government and religion intertwined
corporations protected: labor’s voice suppressed.
rampant cronyism and corruption
obsession with crime and punishment
fraudulent elections
ok - let me try this
i'm gonna guess number 2, no wait check that i'll take number four
hang on - number five
damn it i go with three
wait wait
i'll take the last one
no hold it - can i take two - if so i choose seven and eight
have i tried two yet..
And we wonder why there is so much war in the world? It's the bankers "stupid". To paraphrase Clinton's jab at papa Bush. While we all face forced austerity the banks face nothing similar. Instead they are poised to grab up our public infrastructure and national resources, which they are forcing us to sell at a loss. Why is that? Didn't we bail them out?
We're poised to start a war with Iran over banking. We recently supported a war in Libya about banking. What do we get in return? Higher prices on everything.
More war, more criminal (legalized) behavior, more of the same....
Here is a simple solution to reorganizing society and it needs to start at the bottom and work its way upward in order to have clout.
Look at the pictures of the ruling elite - mostly men. Look at the statistics about violent criminal behavior - mostly men. If the ratio is ( I would guess) 75% for men and 25% for women then from now on, whenever a decision has to be made by a group, women should get 75% of the vote and men 25%. All decisions in groups are ultimately connected to the common welfare and if decisions are then made by a majority of less violent and criminal people - the outcomes will be better for us all. If you want to uphold "one person one vote"
then every person can vote for who they want to represent them in the final weighted decision process. Start this at work, in school, in your neighborhood, town, county, state, country and watch things get better.
So how do we classify Hillary Clinton, Madelyn Albight, and Condeleza Rice?
So it won't matter if Mitt or Newt beat OB-Wan ... things will always be the same when it comes to the ruling class ... my challenge as a "99%-er" will be how to get a handout ... to kiss some hindy ... to suck up ... so I can continue to eat ... But I don't want to piss off the corporate ruling class because they will get back at me by cutting off my social security and raiding what's left of my retirement fund ... help us OB-Wan, you're our only hope.
This government is making me sicker by the day. Isn't it just foul that all of these crooks are free to continue unabated to ply a criminal trade that abused the MASS majority of people? This is a fascist regime, period! Now what are we going to do about it because, obviously they,( our government) aren't going to apply applicable law to anyone. I see it like this, if we all know that these things are true, then we can't be held accountable for illegal activities against them. This is an internal war situation where the rules aren't going to be used, right? So, I think, the only thing holding us back is the fear of penalties applied for doing something illegal and having law applied to us, right? Well we need to choose a few folks that we all can trust to help transition a new government and that person must promise to release the people who take whatever means are required to de-throne this regime. I know that my feelings are, nobody that I've met recently has the fabric required, by me, to put my faith into a concerted forward moving effort to do this. There are some of us who know how, but can't afford the consequences that are applied to the behavior that disempowers powerful government and financial sector people, so as soon as we can figure out, or enough folks understand that this is the stuff that revolutions are made of and if we don't take action very quickly, we are going to be pinned down by tyranny. People we must wake up, it's time to go to school, BIlly. Wake up Kate, your country issa burning, your flag means nothing to anyone but the drunk who watches mainstream media, and those of us who aren't drunk should stand in front of a mirror and ask, what have I done to promote this madness? I, personally, am embarrassed to be American anymore, it's true, aren 't you?????
I'm ready for a change. I will never vote for a Republican or Democrat ever again. For what it's worth, I'm voting 3rd party. I'm sick and tired of people saying that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils because the Republicans would be worse. It seems to me that Obama gets away with a lot more than a Republican ever did. I'm voting for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party out of principle. It no longer matters if a Democrat or Republican wins. They're all bought and paid for.
What is hilarious is that after reading these types of articles ad nausea, and juxtaposed against the apologia offered by Obamabots, they nevertheless remain children of a lesser evil god. Even more striking is they still call themselves liberal while collecting off their investments from the very entities destroying the planet, the poor, and the middle class as if there is some meaningful difference between the parties.
I had a tangential, but related, point, EarthFirst.
Since Chris Dodd has been back in the limelight lately, I'm reminded of when he first announced that he was retiring from the Senate.
There was a brief but fervid buzz in the progressive-liberal lite commentariat, e.g. "Democracy Now", speculating that Dodd might use his remaining "lame duck" influence to really take off the gloves and fight for financial reforms since he had "nothing to lose" politically.
The assumption, or presumption, was that Dodd is or was one of the "good guys"-- a principled reformer at heart, and a genuine advocate for the interests of ordinary unprivileged citizens.
The speculation only made sense if one believed that Dodd was sincerely trying to be part of the solution, despite being hamstrung and inhibited by pragmatism and political constraints.
I found it astonishing, even ludicrous-- it seemed obvious enough that Dodd was a tool and ally of vested interests and the power elite. It was equally obvious that Dodd would do nothing that might impede or jeopardize the lucrative post-senatorial phase of his career track upon the slopes of the Olympian heights where the overclass dwell-- as proved to be exactly the case.
True Believers call this optimism, "realism", and open-mindedness. I call it "the persistence of illusion".
True Believers call this optimism, "realism", and open-mindedness. I call it "the persistence of illusion". -- Obedient Servant
I agree -- I remember the same illusions being tossed around at the time Dodd announced he was retiring.
This is one of the articles I bookmarked from the L.A. Times:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/03/chris-dodds-wife-and-her-strange-entanglement-with-derivatives-trading-.html
This article, dated March 19, 2010, connects Dodd to CME, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. At the time, Jackie Clegg, Dodd's wife, was director of CME.
Currently, CME is up to its eyebrows in the MF Global bankruptcy -- and the Jon Corzine scandal.
OS: the term “liberal” is no longer a signifier to identify someone who practices inclusion, open mindedness, or depth of insight. Liberalism has morphed itself and become nothing more than a tired euphemism which is characterized by an allegiance to the status quo and moneyed interests of the enfranchised. Liberalism is nothing more than afterthought of its former philosophic integrity, whose entire existence is now measured by its organized attempts to blockade or impede the ascendancy of the poor, and disenfranchised toward basic human rights and needs. They do this by insuring their own privilege tied forever to the corrupt duopoly, the dismantling and collusion which is forever tethered to the military industrial establishment, corporate hegemony, and endless rhetoric obfuscations which have no value or meaning whatsoever in the marketplace of ideas. They have pretty much taken away the underpinnings of the social safety net, and next they will herd us into gulags for forced labor camps.
Anyone currently still calling themselves a Liberal is the ENEMY of the left and the poor. It is time for those of us who have been disenfranchised to rise up and throw off the yoke of our oppressers, be they liberal, conservative, neo-conservative, or neo liberals. Piss on the lot starting with Dodd and his ilk and the pretenders that tow the DNC company line. Chris Hedges says that in twenty years the elites will be living in gated communities while the rest of us fight for scraps and clean drinking water. And I agree with him.
Of course we want the foxes in charge of hen house security. Who would know more about what needs to be done to protect them? ;-)
Fascism light the Amerikan experience.
Thank you Bill Moyers for the return.
What can be done about this? The so-called revolving door is affecting how our nation is governed. For instance, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has extensively covered how the SEC has failed to prosecute Wall Street malfeasance due to the lure of later employment in the very firms it is supposed to regulate. Considering the salary disparities, it's no wonder regulators cannot resist the lure of private industry, and behave accordingly. I dispair of finding a solution to this problem.
I agree totally that there are serious problems with all of this. On the other hand, I also recognize that, as a businessman, I don't hire a software engineer to handle my finances and tax accounting -- and I don't hire somebody from finance and accounting to do my software development. You have to hire somebody who knows Wall Street in order to be effective dealing with Wall Street, just like you have to hire a software engineer to be effective writing software. I'm NOT saying this is an ideal thing when it comes to Wall Street / Washington, and I'm NOT trying to defend what's been happening. I'm only pointing out some realities that need to be included in any consideration of solutions.
Thanks, kburgoyne. Meaning neither disrespect towards nor disagreement with previous comment-ers, it's a real boost to find someone speaking to something other than the ongoing despairing and/or anger. I wonder how long this thread will stay open? And whether any one else will chime in with some additional points of view. 'Twould be nice to find something other than an echo chamber.
"echo chamber?"
That is rich coming from a ditto head. How do you characterize your own post which concurs with a Democratic apologist? Dont your own observations include you?
"Citigroup Replaces JPMorgan as White House Chief of Staff."
You want someone who knows WallStreet? Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, David Stockman, Gretchen Mortenson, Steve Keen, James Galbraith, Warren Buffett, Elizabeth Warren, Eliot Spitzer, Paul Volcker, Ralph Nader, etc, etc. I'm lazy, or with 5 min of work, I'd add a hundred names to that list. Thanks to the 2008 meltdown, the number of people who understand, deeply, how WallStreet works (and, more importantly, doesn't work) grows every day. I know LIGHTYEARS more about how WallStreet does its (non)job than I did in 2006 because, frankly, they have forced me to get wise to their predations. Given the sheer weight of imminently credentialed experts able and willing to take on the task of reforming WallStreet, what is the likelihood of the headline above? Zero. Its as unlikely as hiring Jeffrey Immelt to be your jobs czar.
The names above, and others, won't get hired because they are actually critical of WallStreet. Our government is hiring the foxes to guard the chicken coop. We will see how that works out.
Astonishing how the apologetic wing chimes in on almost every thread but especially whenever an astute analysis demonstrates how the 99% is getting fleeced by the duopoly.
Liberalism has declined over the years and now shares characteristics with Christian fundamentalists. Liberalism once grew out of a dynamism that incites reflection, inquiry and pursuit of the truth; or at least a truth not yet possessed.
Conversely, the status quo liberalism of our time no longer pushes the edges; it has rather collapsed in upon itself to defend corrupt and slippery institutions to buttress their dishonesty. The original liberalism stood starkly against this mind set because it was never a sedative for world weary people, but instead an evolving inquiry in motion, to fight the inclinations to accept things as they are; and it use to continually call into question unexamined assumptions of political institutions.
These questions (like this article) arise at the edges of what we can know and what we can do as human beings. They thrust themselves on us with special force in times and situations of crisis, suffering, injustice, upheaval, and social angst. The original liberal philosophy never use to see itself as immune, sacrosanct, or beyond scrutiny.
Nowadays, liberalism has morphed itself to the same tired memes that are accepted as orthodoxy by the professional pundits that are ubiquitous like Thom Hartman and his ile. They no longer have the depth of wonder to see new solutions or movements emerging out of the chaos, nor do they give it its due always refering us back to the status quo dysfunction that they derive their living from. They no longer see us as having the power to rid ourselves of political corruption, and personal flaws of its body politic, but nevertheless make excuses for it.
When liberalism collapsed upon itself, it set the stage for a impotent disempowerment where hard questions of the last vestige of free beings who asked them, were turned into enemies to be repressed and challenged. This unquestioning norm advanced by the duopoly and their stooges, has taken on the most egregious types of attributes that I would characterize as a form of ‘religious zeal.’
It represents a type of ‘faith’ in what they lovingly refer to as the “Two Party System” and surpirsingly shares the norms of fundamentalist religion anywhere; because it soon slips into ideology, and it languishes in limbo while coveting its inhuman standards of a private saviour while looking solely to its own inane selfishness, void of any human concern for the least in the market place except as expressed in the obligatory lip service it promotes.
In summary, human life ceases to be human --not when we do not have all the answers -- but when we no longer have the courage to ask the really important questions. This is what the Dem apologia has succumbed to in the modern age and why it needs to be desperately transcended.
All I see is that the company I work for is replacing people has they retire with temps, at $2.00 less an hour.
How in hell are you going to drive a consumer economy with real a inflation a rate of according to the website 'shadow stats.com' of (11.4%), by decreasing wages? Your purchasing power is being destroyed.
Unless of course you can transfer enough wealth to the top 10% to support the economy at a sufficient level without the need for a so-called middle class. I heard a statistic recently that supports this idea. That 50% of all consumer purchases are now made by the top 10%.
Also I don't don't buy this lie that if you tax the rich they can't produce jobs
During the Eisenhower era the income tax on the top 1% was over 90%. During the Kennedy years it was 74% and counrtry was floushing -they were producing lots of jobs then and economy was growing. The wealthy then didn't bock because they understood that they had it good and why rock the boat, possibly bringing down the whole system. What good would that do anyone.
I think the rich of that era were in someways a smarter bunch, then those in power today.They had seen the crash of '29' and the resulting depression and learned a lesson; 'that to much wealth concentrated in too few hands was not good for anyone'.
That lesson as been long forgotten.
THE GAME THAT GOES ON AND ON:
A SWISS BANK, A PRESIDENT, AND THE PERMANENT GOVERNMENT
By RUSS BAKER
Published: April 21, 2010
http://whowhatwhy.com/printme.html
http://whowhatwhy.com/the-game-that-goes-on-and-on.html
and a newer article on Robert Wolf by Russ Baker is here:
Obama’s Only Friend Left?
By Russ Baker on Jan 2, 2012
http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/01/02/obama%E2%80%99s-only-friend-left/print/
For those who have forgotten just how dirty UBS was, here is chair of the 2008 Senate Committee that investigated, Sen. Carl Levin's take, as reported by ABC:
Sen. Levin: Shut Down Giant Swiss Bank UBS
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5394214&page=1#.TyCEoPl-eSp
But what can we do about all this when our only electoral choices are "Bad" and "Worse"?