Speaking at an event in Osawatomie, Kan., on Tuesday, President Obama decried the “breathtaking greed” of wealthy Wall Street executives that had “plunged our economy and the world into a crisis.” It was his most explicit effort yet to harness the alleged anxieties of the Occupy Wall Street “movement” about a perpetually aggrieved “99 percent” pitted against a phenomenally wealthy and cold-hearted “1 percent.”
If the president (himself a multi-millionaire) wants to mount a crusade against Wall Street and the “1 percent,” however, he need look no further than the current and former members of his own White House staff.
Peter Orszag — former White House budget director
Orszag left the administration in July 2010 to become vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup, where he earns an estimated $2 million to $3 million per year.
Advertisement
Rahm Emanuel — former White House chief of staff
Emanuel, who left the administration in October 2010 to run for mayor of Chicago, raked in more than $16 million between 1999 and 2002, when he served as managing director at investment firm Wasserstein Perella. During that same time, Emanuel served a 14-month stint on the Freddie Mac board of directors, for which he was paid more than $300,000 in total compensation, including stock. In his new book Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer reveals that Emanuel reportedly sold up to $250,000 of his Freddie Mac stock on Feb. 21, 2003, just days before it suffered a 10 percent loss amid rumors — which were subsequently confirmed — that the company was under criminal investigation for inflating earnings.
Larry Summers — former National Economic Council director
After resigning his post as Harvard president, in which he earned more than $600,000 annually in salary and benefits, Summers became a managing director at D. E. Shaw, one of the largest hedge funds in the world, with nearly $30 billion in assets. In 2008, prior to joining the administration, Summers took home more than $5 million from D. E. Shaw and an additional $2.7 million in speaking fees from companies such as JP Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch. Summers left his White House post at the end of 2010 and returned to teach at Harvard. He is also a special adviser to the venture-capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.
I drove by Joe Biden's house in Delaware the other day, expecting to see tents and signs in front of his palatial 7.5 million dollar home but saw none. I guess you're excused from the 1% tag when you're hearts in the right place.
After reading this article I have to admit to being impressed by Mr Obama. I have long believed that the American left was on a crusade against shame and guilt. Obama's speech clearly demonstrates what is possible without those two bothersome emotions.
It takes either a special talent or a complete lack of shame to lie with the skill Mr Obama demonstrated yesterday.
As for the wall street money people, well it seems clear that they are quite capable of manufacturing income out of thin air. But they seem far less adept and managing relationships. The relationship they have with Mr Obama can only be described as co dependent at this point.
Perhaps I could suggest a slogan for the 1% folks who contribute to Obama while being publically castigated by him:
To be honest, I don't see any contradiction in Obama's rhetoric and his rich one-percenter (or 0.1%er) staff. In many cases, they scammed their way to their riches, and they probably assume that everyone else does, too. They may feel a sense of guilt, but greed won't let them give it away, so they want someone to tax it away.
But I also don't believe that they think much about their personal fortunes. For one thing, they are already rich, so income taxes aren't terribly important to them. If you have a net worth of $10M and earn $1M a year and your income tax is raised 5%, the overall effect is immaterial.
In addition, I believe that they probably want the government to bestow some charity on the poor slobs who aren't smart enough to scam fortunes of their own. They believe in an entitlement society. Since it was so easy for them to gain fortunes, why not give everyone else some goodies, too?
I don't think the Obama administration has been charged with "bringing in socialism ". That's a straw dog argument. What they have been more accurately accused of is advancing socialist policies much farther than any administration has since FDR.
Obama also said something about being in favor of "everyone playing by the same rules." Considering his record of crony capitalism, this is an opening big enough for an opponent to drive a campaign bus through. Yet nothing but silence, as we have heard so many times before (if a GOP administration would have illegally supplied criminals and terrorists with firearms in a transparent attempt to undermine part of the Bill of RIghts, do you think the Dems would take advantage of the scandal?)
So my question NRO readers: Why does the GOP want to lose the 2012 election?
I mean really, the two strongest candidates are a failed legislator and the only politician besides Obama who can be tied to government health care?
"...Yet nothing but silence..."
Because, of course, all of the candidates in all political parties are guilty of the exact same thing. So none of them want to encourage the media to focus its lasers on their own questionable scruples.
If our president truly believes that Wall St. is a weapon of middle class destruction why hasn't he returned any of their campaign contributions? I'm sure there are plenty of charities that could use the hundreds of thousands he received from Goldman Sachs, Citigroup etc. in 08 and he should return every penny donated in this cycle too. If the president wants to play this game he should return the cash or be called a hypocrite by every republican running for his job every single day. Hit him in his wallet as he's trying to hit ours, it's self-defense.
"Mrs. Obama made almost $450,000 between 2004 and 2005, when she served as “vice president for community and external affairs” and head of the “business diversity program” at the University of Chicago Medical Center. "
A classic no-show "job". I bet her office was really cute though. The Obamas are professional grifters.
The lesson: Never let hypocrisy stand in the way of a campaign theme. Obama is to bailouts as Will Rogers was to men; he never met one he didn't like. Obama says the greed of Wall Street fat cats is breathtaking. What is breathtaking is that his campaign is built on a strategy of demonizing the same class of people from whom he's raked in millions in contributions, that he's chosen to fill his administration, and that he's bailed out to relieve of the consequences of their recklessness and their "breathtaking greed."
I do not doubt that this is true. I also think that Obama is part of the problem. But which of the Republican candidates are not fat cats who surround themselves with other fat cats? Name me one other than Ron Paul...we all get that he is different from the other Republicans...which is why he is neglected as a candidate, despite his strong base of support. Both Democrats and Republicans are essentially chosen from the same small pool. Some represent Good Cop, some represent Bad Cop, but both work for their corporate donors. Neither side really cares about the people.
If you are pretending to be the champion of the middle-class but are yourself wealthy and surround yourself with friends who have made great fortunes, then you are a hypocrite. Forget the Republican hogs: your own friends are fat enough to disprove that you or they are "one of us."
Follow
