Emanuel Will be Wall Street's Man in the Obama White House

My November 7, 2008 Washington Examiner column:

Just as [Rahm] Emanuel has helped Wall Street, Wall Street has helped Emanuel. This past election cycle, more than a third of Emanuel’s campaign contributions from political action committees came from financial sector PACs.

His top source of campaign funds this year was the subprime-rattled UBS (the Swiss bank’s PAC and employees gave, corporations cannot give campaign contributions), who benefited from the housing bailout which Emanuel supported and has already shown an interest in expanding.

Hedge funds and private equity firms are also close with Emanuel. Over his career, Emanuel’s best source of funds has been the private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners. Hedge funds, facing a new slew of regulations, handouts, and rules, dramatically increased their contributions this year, and Emanuel was also their favorite House member.

The $96,900 Emanuel pulled in from hedge funds places him above any Senator besides presidential candidates. In fact, Emanuel garnered from hedge funds more than the top 11 Republican lawmakers, combined.

Will Maryland Government Enter the Gambling Industry?

My October 31 Examiner column on the proposal to establish video gambling in Maryland:

Some characterize this initiative as “legalizing video lotteries,” as if the government were proposing to simply lift its existing ban. But it is instead a big-government program. Video lotteries in Maryland won’t be private businesses that pay taxes—they will be effectively a government program administered in part by private companies.

The House Ways and Means committee in Annapolis explained the video lottery industry’s status in language that could have come out of the Soviet Union or Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan: “If the State decides to legalize an activity currently prohibited, the revenues from this activity belong to the State. It is then the decision of the State as to how to appropriately allocate the revenues.”

The state’s strict control over the industry points to other potential unsavory business-government cooperation. The amendment would limit the number of terminals, meaning the current gaming giants would get their licenses and be confident that no competitors could cut into their racket. Nice work if you can get it.

Free All of the Joe the Plumbers

My October 24 Washington Examiner column on Joe the Plumber and licensing laws as cartels:

Liberal bloggers and mainstream journalists have pegged it as scandalous or mock-worthy that Joe is engaging in unlicensed plumbing. Instead we should be asking why the City of Toledo, Ohio, or any city, county, or state, is justified telling its citizens whom they can or cannot hire to fix a leaky pipe.

You can read the whole column here.

Obama and Big Business vs. a freer health insurance market

My October 17 Washington Examiner column on McCain's plan to end special treatment of employers-sponsored health benefits:

The New York Times reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable didn't like the idea of people breaking free from their employer for healthcare. "To some in the business community, this is very discomforting," Chamber lobbyist Bruce Josten told the Times.

Of course it's discomforting—it could spur entrepreneurship and boost employee independence. Currently, the tax code punishes you for finding health care outside of your employer, which makes you more likely to stay in your current job, which gives your employer more control over you. Rejected for a raise? You still can't leave because you need health care. Want to strike out on your own? How will you afford health care for yourself and your employees?

Read the whole thing here

Obama hangs out fly-paper for lobbyists

My Washington Examiner column for October 10 discusses Obama's coziness with Wall Street:

On Tuesday night, in the second debate, Obama answered a question on the economy by stating, “we’re going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren’t driving the process and your voices aren’t being drowned out.” He’s absolutely correct. Wall Street and banks have outsize influence in Washington, driving policies (pushed by both parties) that helped lead to our current mess.

But Obama is pretty cozy with those industries: According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama has received more than John McCain in donations from commercial banks ($2.4 million to $2.1 million), hedge funds and private equity ($2.2 million to $1.5 million), and securities and investment ($10.9 million to $7.6 million). Obama’s lead over McCain in this last category (which is basically Wall Street) is more than twice all the money ($914,000) McCain has taken from lobbyists.

The top two Wall Street donors this cycle, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, have both favored Obama—Goldman by a three-to-one ratio. Of course, Obama is the second-leading recipient of Fannie Mae money in history.

Read the whole thing here.

Protectionism for Wall Street

My October 3, 2008 Washington Examiner column explains what the Wall Street bailout is really about.

I guess we only call it protectionism when it’s men in hardhats who are at risk of losing jobs. When it’s men in pinstriped suits worried that their industry might dry up, we call it “stabilization.”

Protectionism is the right word for the bailout the House is voting on today. Without a bailout, we are told by the people who got us into this mess, the entire economy would melt down. Pittsburgh steel workers also told us that without a domestic steel industry, all of America would suffer.

Read the whole thing here.

The new masters of the universe

My Examiner column for September 26, looks at the Great Wall Street Bailout:

Wall Street, always dependent on Washington for protective regulation and “pro-market” policies that drive capital towards housing and securities, has prostrated itself before the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury in recent days, ushering in a brave new era of a nationalized economy.

Who wins? Who always wins? The politicians, the bureaucrats, and the businesses with the best lobbyists.

Read the whole thing here.

AIG feels at home in the government

My September 19, 2008, column for the Washington Examiner addresses the AIG bailout:

To judge by the rhetoric coming from Capitol Hill liberals, you would think the recently bailed-out American International Group (AIG) was some sort of free-market, government-hating, leave-me-alone-to-make-my-profits capitalist cowboy before it came begging this week for a handout from Uncle Sam. The company’s lobbying record and campaign contributions tell a different story.

AIG has built its business in conjunction with big government and, naturally, lobbied for big government programs that make some of its businesses possible. Still Democrats are using the company’s collapse, and the broader context of the financial crisis, as an indictment of the free-market and of Republicans.

Read the whole thing here.

Rangel is Capitol Hill money man

My September 12, 2008, Washington Examiner column looks into Charlie Rangel's modus operandi:

If his acceleration in fundraising isn’t evidence enough that Rangel has turned his chair into a fundraising tool, the Baucus-Rangel Leadership Fund should be a tip-off. One month into the new Democratic majority, Rangel formed a joint fundraising committee with Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana.

What do the two have in common, aside from the fact that there is a Harlem, Mont.? Baucus is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the upper chamber’s tax-writing committee. What would be the purpose of a joint fundraising committee controlled by the two lawmakers with the most control over tax law?

Sure enough, the donor list is plush with developers, financiers and wealthy businessmen with interesting tax situations.

Read the whole thing here.

Living it up at the conventions--on your dime

ST PAUL, MINN.--My March 5, 2008, Washington Examiner column:

They say there’s no such thing as a free lunch, but this week I have sure been enjoying lots of Summit India Pale Ale, fried walleye and all kinds of tasty nourishment at events surrounding the Republican National Convention, without paying for any of it.

The same was true in Denver last week. Of course, none of this was “free.” My free food and drink — which paled in comparison to wining and dining enjoyed by the politicians and policymakers here — were the wages of a government that has far outgrown the power and influence our founders intended.

The less-savory fruits are high taxes, often oppressive regulations, and a lobbying game that invites graft, corruption and abuse of power. That’s why we see corporate sponsors all over both of these conventions.

Read the whole thing here.