Wall Street Socialism Paves Way for Global Government
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid |
...the best chance for conservative principles to prevail was to follow the conservative principles embodied in the 2008 Republican platform.
Now that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has essentially admitted that his Wall Street bailout plan isn't working, it's worthwhile to examine the fawning media coverage he received when he pressured President Bush and Congress into approving it. "This former investment banker may be the right man at the right time," was one of the headlines over a gushing September 29 Newsweek article by Daniel Gross. Among his attributes, we were told, Paulson was an Eagle Scout.
But as an Eagle Scout myself, I seem to remember that the Boy Scout motto was "Be prepared." Paulson seems not to be prepared for anything.
As Michelle Malkin, who was opposed to the bailout, puts it in her new column: "The man doesn't know what the hell he's doing."
In a separate Newsweek article in the same issue, Fareed Zakaria said, "In Paulson, America is extremely fortunate to have a man of tremendous intelligence, drive and pragmatism, who will engage in 'bold and persistent experimentation' until the job is done." The article was headlined "Big Government to the Rescue."
In retrospect, the phrase "persistent experimentation" apparently means making mistake after mistake and not being held accountable for them.
Making Paulson out to be the boy next door, Newsweek included a series of photos apparently taken from the Paulson family album. There was a photo of Paulson as a "college football star," a photo of the "nature-loving Paulson" holding a hawk, a photo of Paulson on a kayak, and so on.
But there was a bit of hard news in the piece. Paulson, Gross reported, "had always been a Republican¯but more a Rockefeller Republican than a DeLay." This is another way of saying that this Wall Street banker and former CEO of Goldman Sachs is a liberal. A better description would be Wall Street socialist. So how did he end up as Bush's Treasury Secretary? He was recruited for the job by White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, who, from 1994 to 1999, was Executive Director for Legal & Government Affairs at Goldman Sachs International in London.
In its effort to provide more health care to more people, the government has distorted the market and the consequence has been removal of the cost factor from the consumer. In a free market, the consumer is king. It is the purchase that triggers the flow of money. Providers compete for the consumer's purchase by offering products and services at prices low enough to incite the consumer to act. Consumers shop and compare, denying dollars to providers whose price is too high or service is too low.
Enter the government. Medicare offers an excellent example. Consumers no longer care about price; the government will pay. The cost of service is not a deterrent. Consumers are thereby encouraged to consume at will. Providers no longer care about winning the customer's purchase; the government will pay. Moreover, the government will pay what the government wants to pay, so there is no incentive for the provider to compete in price or service. Since government is paying a fixed fee for products and services, suppliers throughout the system seek ways to maximize payment. Over time, they get really good at it. That's why the actual cost of Medicare has vastly outstripped its estimated costs.
These increased costs permeate the industry, and apply to non-Medicare patients as well. That's why insurance companies are forced to increase rates. In a real free market, consumers would be able to shop different insurance companies to find the best service at the best rate.
Enter the government – again. Government limits the choices consumers have. Obamacare will limit private choices even further by imposing regulations that will force private companies out of business.
When government is paying for health care, government dictates the quantity, quality and price of the care. The costs that are not extracted as premiums or co-pay will be extracted as increased taxes.
When government is paying for health care, there are no choices, there are no options. Every life is subject to whatever requirements the government may choose to impose. Smokers, for example, could be denied certain services – should the government so decide. Overweight people could be denied certain services unless they meet government-imposed weight limits. Seniors could be denied life-extending procedures should the government decide that the cost is greater than the benefit.
Perhaps the worst consequence of Obamacare is the expansion of a culture that depends upon government; that teaches that government can bestow rights, whether to health care, or education, or a living wage, or all the other so-called rights listed in the socialists' agenda.
Obamacare, if enacted, is indeed a shortcut to socialism.
The Wisconsin Legislature has passed Gov. Scott Walker's plan to balance the current year's budget that's projected to be $137 million short.
The Assembly voted 58-36 Tuesday to pass the measure, which relies largely on refinancing of state debt to save $165 million between now and the end of the fiscal year June 30.
The Senate voted 22-11 earlier Tuesday to pass the plan. It now heads to Walker.
“I commend the legislature, both Democrats and Republicans, for working quickly to allow us to finish this year with a balanced budget and protect middle-class taxpayers,” said Governor Scott Walker. “In addition, this legislation allows us to continue to provide healthcare for the poor.”
Senate Democrats were in session for the first time since they fled the state with no warning on Feb. 17 to block passage of Walker's bill taking away collective bargaining rights from state workers.
The budget bill they took up included many of the parts of the measure that were removed from the union bill before it passed in March.
Brief Introduction of the Communist Party of China
The Communist Party of China (CPC) was founded on July 1, 1921 in Shanghai, China. After 28 years of struggle, the CPC finally won victory of "new-democratic revolution" and founded the People's Republic of China in 1949. The CPC is the ruling party of mainland China (P.R. China).
The Communist Party of China is founded mainly on ideology and politics. The CPC derives its ideas and policies from the people's concentrated will and then turns that will into State laws and decisions which are passed by the National People's Congress of China through the State's legal procedures. Theoretically, CPC does not take the place of the government in the State's leadership system. The Party conducts its activities within the framework of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the law and has no right to transcend the Constitution and the law. All Party members, like all citizens in the country, are equal before the law.
The Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in December 1978, decided to shift the focus of the Party's work to socialist modernization and set a policy of reform and opening up to the outside world.
Any Chinese who has reached the age of 18, accepts the Party's Program and Constitution and is willing to join and work actively in one of the Party organizations, carry out the Party's decisions and pay membership dues regularly, may apply for membership of the CPC. Its membership increased from 70 in 1921 to over 66 million in 2002.
The highest leading body of the Party is the National Congress and the Central Committee elected by it. The National Congress of the Party is held once every five years and convened by the Central Committee.
Marxist Democratic Socialists of America, Helped Obama Win in 2008
Cross posted from KeyWiki Blog
President Barack Obama has a long history with the U.S.'s largest marxist based organization, Democratic Socialists of America (D.S.A.).
With several thousand members (many of whom are also Democratic Party activists and office holders), and considerable influence in academia, the media, mass "community organizations" and labor unions, D.S.A. has the power to direct or influence hundreds of thousands of activists in the "correct" direction.
Here is hard evidence that D.S.A. threw its entire weight behind their long time ally Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential elections.
From the Democratic Socialists of America National Political Committee Minutes of Meeting of September 13-14, 2008
DSA's main program focus through the rest of 2008 will consist of (1) working to help ensure the election of Barack Obama and (2) continuing work on the Renegotiate NAFTA petition drive.
Work on the Obama campaign will include:
1) email blasts and other communications issuing from the National Office attacking McCain/Palin and explaining the necessity of voting for Obama,
2) encouraging locals to do DSA-day volunteering en bloc for the Obama campaign,
3) circulating pro-Obama/anti-McCain literature that YDS is developing to nonyouth DSA members,
4) encouraging DSA members to write anti-McCain letters to the editor for their local newspapers, and provide them with sample language and tips on getting published;
5) if YDS organizes volunteer efforts for Obama, especially in swing states, urge them to open their actions to a multi-generational component, and if they agree, inform DSA members of the availability of this option;
6) materials from DSA on reasons to support Obama shall reference the Economic Justice Agenda whenever possible. Work on the Renegotiate NAFTA campaign The motion carried unanimously. Would Obama have won in 2008, without the efforts of D.S.A. and their allies (and self proclaimed Obama "friends") , the Communist Party USA?
Well... I am agree some how and unfortunatily direct voting system is still not happening in America and the system still needs development that way and is pretty old fashioned some how... but still it is a strong democracy as well.
And exactly what does a Socialist (non-American citizen) know about the voting procedure here in the USA? That is funny coming from someone whose country is ruled by parliment.
And still... President Barack Obama is going to win in 2012
Let me ask you a question. Are you God and you therefore know who will be our next president? Or is it you paid a psychic for a really bad prediction. If you paid a psychic I hope you can get your money back.
Why are you so interested and pushing for America to be a socialist country? You are not even an American. What do you care about our country anyways? And please don't say it is because you have family here. Maybe your family is here because they are sick and tired of living in Socialist Denmark.
Dont bother with this guy. He's not even an American....and does not understand American politics..All he does is Obama this....Obama that... and does not bother to place LEGITIMATE facts. DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME RESPONDING TO THIS IDIOT!!
Financial Services U.S. Posts Record Monthly Budget Deficit By Robert Schroeder
Published March 10, 2011
| MarketWatch Pulse
WASHINGTON - The U.S. government posted a budget deficit of $222.5 billion in February, the largest monthly deficit on record, the Treasury Department reported Thursday. The government spent about $333 billion in the month and took in about $110 billion. Compared to February 2010, corporate tax receipts were 69% lower. On the spending side, the U.S. spent 29% more than a year ago on interest on the U.S. debt.
The first wave of economic impact is already spreading across the 35,000 families that are directly employed by the Gulf oil industry. Each oil rig worker provides employment for three additional people who work in supporting industries. These jobs, too, are evaporating. The deepwater rigs cannot simply sit and wait in hopes that Obama might change his mind. The daily cost for a rig to sit and wait is about $600,000. Diamond Offshore has already announced that its Endeavor rig is moving to Egyptian waters. More will surely follow. Once these rigs are out of the Gulf, they will not soon return.
The second wave of economic impact will begin when prices at the pump begin to rise. Remember the spike in gas prices when hurricane Katrina shut down a few rigs for a few weeks. Now, imagine what the effect will be when there are no rigs in the Gulf, for the foreseeable future.
Currently, more than 60 percent of our oil is imported. With no oil from the Gulf, nearly 75 percent of our oil will have to come from abroad. Canada and Mexico now supply only about 15 percent of our oil. This means that most of our oil will have to come from countries that really want to do us harm. It makes no sense at all to deliberately become dependent upon our enemies for our energy needs.
A responsible administration and Congressional leadership would do whatever is required to fix the BP problem in the Gulf without shutting down domestic oil supplies. Next, they would open domestic reserves, on land and in the oceans, to environmentally safe development. A president who is more interested in his citizens' well being than in advancing his own agenda, would not try to force his citizens to use exotic alternative energy that costs much more than petroleum. It is apparent, of course, that Obama's first concern is his own agenda, regardless of what the people or the courts may say.
If America is to survive as the land of the free, it is imperative that the current leadership in Washington be removed and replaced with people who believe in the principles of limited government, free markets, private property, and individual freedom. Two years of leadership by the Obama-Reid-Pelosi trinity demonstrates contempt for these principles. The only reward worthy of their service is early and absolute retirement.
Following Rahm Emanuel's advice, the Obama administration is certainly not letting the Gulf oil crisis go to waste. The BP catastrophe is just what Obama needed to justify pushing his irresponsible energy policy on a weary nation. Obama wants to stop using fossil fuel in favor of more exotic alternative energy sources. He doesn't seem to know, or care, that there is no alternative energy technology that can meet the current energy demand. His actions suggest that if enough tax-generated government subsidies are applied, the technology will emerge.
His recent visit Smith Electric Vehicles in Kansas City proved to be a dog and pony show to try to convince the nation that his $32 million grant to the firm to produce 500 trucks was well spent. This is a direct subsidy from taxpayers of $64,000 per truck, which, when offered in the marketplace will still cost twice as much as a comparable non-electric vehicle. This comes on the heels of a $2 billion grant to subsidize two solar plants.
So strong is his desire to wean Americans off fossil fuel that he immediately issued a six-month moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The order was issued as a safety precaution even though the 50,000 well holes drilled in the Gulf since 1947 have leaked far less oil than has been released through natural seepage. As tragic and expensive as the BP spill may be, its impact on the economy can't be compared to the loss of oil production from the Gulf.
Obama was only 12 when OPEC decided to turn off the oil faucet to the United States in 1973. At the time, OPEC supplied only about seven percent of our oil. Nevertheless, gasoline prices more than doubled, and supplies were sporadic, at best. Long lines formed at every gas station; cars with license plates that ended with odd numbers were allowed to purchase gas on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Cars with plates ending in even numbers could buy only on the other days of the week.
Oil from the Gulf supplies nearly ten percent of our petroleum requirement. By turning off this faucet, the price of gasoline will skyrocket, perhaps doubling, as it did in the 1970s.
Despite two court rulings against Obama's moratorium, he continues to insist that no drilling will be allowed. By refusing to issue permits, the Obama administration has effectively stopped Gulf oil production regardless of the courts' rejection of his moratoria.
On a national scale, the environmental impacts of wind and solar alternative energy become truly staggering. Former Deputy Energy Secretary Ken Davis has calculated that, to produce the 218 gigawatts of "additional" electricity America will need by 2010, using only wind or solar power, we would have to blanket 9,400,000 acres with wind mills or solar panels. That's almost 10 percent of California. It's an area equal to Connecticut, Delaware and Massachusetts combined. Moreover, to get all of this electricity into urban areas, miles and miles of wind turbines and solar panes must be linked to miles and miles of high tension power lines – the same kind all other energy sources need. There is no gain from solar or wind power – only loss of energy.
A true energy policy would see government getting out of the energy business and standing aside as the real experts fix the problem in a free market where consumers could pick their power of choice. A few acres for nuclear power plants would solve much of the nation's energy needs. Drilling for oil off shore and in Alaska will give us complete independence from foreign sources and will also keep America out of a lot of foreign turmoil.
Above all, American energy policy must allow for the building of new oil refineries. There hasn't been a new one built since the 1970's and several have been shut down – 10 in California alone. Every time one shuts down simply for repairs gas prices spike.
Yet these ideas are rejected for the politically correct alternatives. Such ideas are the current "wisdom" of our day. The source of such bad policy is special interest groups lining the pockets of mindless politicians to get their own agenda locked into federal mandate – but it doesn't solve America's energy problems. In fact it adds to them. As we fool around with such silly, unworkable dreams of a "carbonless footprint," Americans are paying $3.00 at the pump and potential power blackouts threaten our cities. This is no way to run a country.
It's interesting to note that the major manufacturers of incandescent bulbs are not upset by the new legislation, in fact they helped write it. Why? Well, could it be that the standard incandescent bulb costs about 50 cents each and the new ones cost as much as $3.00? Of course, they tell us they last longer, so the cost is only upfront – and so are the manufacturers' profits. Certainly they will be able to help write legislation to ban something else to increase their market share before the full mandatory transition to the new bulbs in 2012.
One more note on the new lights, reports are now coming out that they cause migraine headaches in many people because they work like standard fluorescent tubes, which subtly flicker constantly. Epileptics are especially affected. Moreover, they make a very harsh, cold white light. Gone will be the warm, cheery mood lighting of the incandescent bulbs. Again, Congress bans a product with only the information fed to them from global corporations who stand to gain. But, more importantly, the new lights are politically correct.
The compromise energy bill did resist the demands of environmentalists to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies (money they wanted used for the development of green energy sources). The greens wanted to mandate that power companies produce certain amounts of energy by renewable means such as solar and wind. However, while that bullet was dodged this time, alternative energy is still wildly popular and most definitely politically correct. So it is important that all Americans understand the worthlessness of alternative energy in solving America's current crisis.
Here are some facts concerning energy production. Producing 50 megawatts of electricity using a gas-fired generating plant, as is in use today, requires 2 to 5 acres of land. Getting the same amount from photovoltaics means covering a minimum of 1,000 acres with solar panels. Of course there also has to be access for trucks to clean the panels. Using the sun to meet California's energy needs would mean paving over hundreds of thousands of acres of desert habitat – along with their resident plant and animal life. And if the sun doesn't shine for, say six months, as in Alaska, well, we freeze in the dark.
A 50-megawatt wind facility requires even more land: at least 4,000 acres. The 100-200 feet tall wind turbines ruin habitat and scenic vistas and represent "an imminent threat" to millions of birds and bats. Today, just in Northern California's Altamont Pass, wind turbines kill thousands of birds every year, including eagles, hawks, owls and other birds of prey. Some call the wind turbines "Cuisinarts in the air." In addition, wind energy is unreliable. If the wind doesn't blow, no energy.
If produced by wind, the 7,000 to 10,000 megawatts of additional electricity California needs immediately would require sacrificing over 400,000 acres to wind turbines, foundations and road access. If solar power were used, more than 100,000 acres would have to be blanketed with panels.
When Congress passed the Energy Bill in December it did everything necessary to please a horde of special interests and very little to actually help Americans with their energy problems. Truth is, America still has no energy policy – just a lot of pork for those feeding at the tax-paid trough.
Political correctness comes from special interest groups who lay down the law with politicians (read: we won't give you any more money unless you say and do things our way). In such an atmosphere there is little room for reasoned thought on the consequences of the legislation Congress enforces on the rest of us. The Energy Bill is the prime example of law by sound bite.
The new law mandates that automakers must boost mileage by 40 percent – to 35 miles per gallon – by 2020. The reason given by the politicians is that this move will help make America less dependent on foreign oil. Funny, though, there isn't a word in the bill about drilling for American oil in Alaska or increasing drilling off shore. Both areas have proven to have near unlimited reserves that could easily free the nation from the Middle East oil czars. Why? Drilling American oil simply isn't politically correct.
The main reason for the mandate is to satisfy the massive environmental lobby that nearly rules Capitol Hill. They have big bucks and a lot of power. Their ultimate goal is to get people completely out of their cars and onto public transportation. That's why you see little in the way of road improvement in transportation bills, but lots of money being thrown at public transportation. Public buses, subways and trains are politically correct. The problem is they just don't necessarily go where the average traveler needs to go – at the time they need to go there.
Of course, mandating higher mileage will force automakers to charge more for the cars because the technology to do it will cost more. And that works perfectly to the anti-car agenda of the environmentalists. The mandate will also force the automakers to produce smaller cars – something the American people have made perfectly clear they do not want and won't buy. Alternative? Fewer cars. That's why public transportation is politically correct.
Another major provision of the energy bill is the production of Ethanol – again, a measure promoted as a way to get us off the foreign oil fix. The trouble is, American farmers can't raise enough corn to supply what is needed for the mandated Ethanol production, let alone supply enough to feed us. And the cost of corn products is already through the roof. As a result, to meet the congressional mandate, the U.S. now has to import corn to produce Ethanol. The main source is Communist China. So, perhaps the Ethanol mandate will help reduce our foreign oil dependency … but, it seems we are just going to shift the pain to an even worse source – Red China. Ain't globalism and free trade grand? And it's politically correct.
Of course, the wise men in the Congress foresaw this problem so the bill mandates a large portion of ethanol to come from the conversion of other cellulose materials. The problem is, that technology has not yet been developed. So Congress passed a law for something not yet invented. And that helps our energy needs…how?
In a bold move, Congress managed to ban the incandescent light bulb. Senate majority Leader Harry Reid said such action was "proper congressional action." Instead, Congress is mandating the politically correct compact fluorescent bulbs that use as little as a fourth the power of the conventional bulbs.
Vice President Joe Biden joined in this campaign by launching his "College Completion Tool Kit," a bunch of expensive suggestions to increase the number of college graduates by 50 percent. He wants to shift the focus from high school completion to college completion and, of course, do more to subsidize the latter.
Biden was the lead speaker at "The First Annual Building a Grad Nation Summit" held in Washington in March, to be followed by a similar summit held by each governor. The plan sets forth vague goals such as developing an action plan, using data to drive decision making, accelerating learning, and relabeling "remedial" courses in college as "developmental."
Of course, Biden's plan calls for extravagant taxpayer handouts such as the First in the World initiative to support "innovative practices," and College Completion Incentive Grants to reward states for undertaking "reforms." That's on top of money already committed by the Obama Administration, such as $40 billion more in Pell grants, a 90 percent increase in tax incentives through the American Opportunity Tax credit, making it easier for students to get grants and loans, and forgiving the college debt of students who promise ten years of public service.
Why should taxpayers be forced to continue unaffordable deficit spending to send more kids to college when the evidence shows that our economy is not offering enough jobs for college graduates now?
The biggest issue today is the need to rebuild an economy that offers the three-fourths of Americans without a college degree jobs which pay enough to buy a home and support a wife raising their own children. Somehow we lost that kind of a society through a combination of feminism, unilateral divorce, illegal and legal immigration, and the steady drumbeat of free-trade elitists telling us that globalism makes it our duty to compete with foreigners willing to work for as little as 30 cents an hour with no benefits.
The party that has the best solution to the jobs issue will win in 2012. More years of taxpayer-funded schooling are not the answer.
Contrary to Obama's political rhetoric, more taxpayer spending to send more students to college will not reduce unemployment or improve the economy. It's just Obama's way of finagling the unemployment statistics by listing young people as students instead of as unemployed.
A report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland confirmed that when it comes to long-term unemployment, the length of unemployment is unrelated to education level. Although employment is higher for people with more years of education, the duration of unemployment is the same for all education levels.
A new phrase is now commonly included in job ads for all kinds of positions: "must be currently employed." Charts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show remarkably parallel lines for the duration of unemployment of Americans age 25 and older who have less than a high school diploma, only a high school diploma, some college, or a college degree.
The Obama Administration continues to propagate the falsehood that solving the unemployment problem requires "more investments in education." Investment is a favorite liberal code word for more spending and higher taxes.
As globalization spread and was touted by the elites as the wave of the future, conventional wisdom was that only blue-collar manufacturing jobs would be sent overseas while college grads were safe. That assumption is now obsolete, as computers and telecommunications have made it possible to offshore the jobs of college-educated employees.
I thought it was a tossup as to which was the greatest education scandal: the $2 trillion taxpayers poured into public schools that failed the twin goals of improving student achievement and closing the gap between higher-income and lower-income students, OR the colossal debt students accumulate to pay exorbitant college tuition prices. But the Chronicle of Higher Education reported a third scandal under the headline "The Great College-Degree Scam."
The Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) found that approximately 60% of the increase in the number of college graduates from 1992 to 2008 now work in relatively low-skilled jobs that need only a high school diploma or less. The actual count is 17.4 million college grads working in occupations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies as not requiring college, such as cashier, waiter, waitress, or bartender.
Facts do not deter the Obama Administration from playing the false tune that more federal education spending is the key to more jobs. White House Domestic Policy Adviser Melody Barnes reprised this myth with a stream of buzzwords: education is the "key to winning the future," we need to "improve educational outcomes" so we can "win in the global marketplace," we must "out-educate the world" and put "greater emphasis on critical thinking and collaborative problem solving," and grab "our generation's 'Sputnik moment.'"
Do you really call articles brought by that anti american militant site you copy and paste from, proofs Faith?
Dude, where do you get your information that I post from anti-american militant sites? Show me the proof, the facts instead of just spouting the first thing that comes to your mind.
Yeah... Wisconsin, Ohio and Arizona and Indiana and Florida all srewed because of Damn crooks and liers on charge
Dude, News Flash. Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana and Florida are not the only places to have crooks and liars. You really need to get your facts straight before you post things here.
Faithfulness Forum Posts (1,056)
RE: Obama 2012! YES WE CAN again! Support Obama and keep working for american prosperity!
Posted: 12/11/08Wall Street Socialism Paves Way for Global Government
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid |
...the best chance for conservative principles to prevail was to follow the conservative principles embodied in the 2008 Republican platform.
Now that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has essentially admitted that his Wall Street bailout plan isn't working, it's worthwhile to examine the fawning media coverage he received when he pressured President Bush and Congress into approving it. "This former investment banker may be the right man at the right time," was one of the headlines over a gushing September 29 Newsweek article by Daniel Gross. Among his attributes, we were told, Paulson was an Eagle Scout.
But as an Eagle Scout myself, I seem to remember that the Boy Scout motto was "Be prepared." Paulson seems not to be prepared for anything.
As Michelle Malkin, who was opposed to the bailout, puts it in her new column: "The man doesn't know what the hell he's doing."
In a separate Newsweek article in the same issue, Fareed Zakaria said, "In Paulson, America is extremely fortunate to have a man of tremendous intelligence, drive and pragmatism, who will engage in 'bold and persistent experimentation' until the job is done." The article was headlined "Big Government to the Rescue."
In retrospect, the phrase "persistent experimentation" apparently means making mistake after mistake and not being held accountable for them.
Making Paulson out to be the boy next door, Newsweek included a series of photos apparently taken from the Paulson family album. There was a photo of Paulson as a "college football star," a photo of the "nature-loving Paulson" holding a hawk, a photo of Paulson on a kayak, and so on.
But there was a bit of hard news in the piece. Paulson, Gross reported, "had always been a Republican¯but more a Rockefeller Republican than a DeLay." This is another way of saying that this Wall Street banker and former CEO of Goldman Sachs is a liberal. A better description would be Wall Street socialist. So how did he end up as Bush's Treasury Secretary? He was recruited for the job by White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, who, from 1994 to 1999, was Executive Director for Legal & Government Affairs at Goldman Sachs International in London.
Distributed by