Obama taps corporate welfare maven for Commerce Secretary

My December 5, 2008 Washington Examiner column:

Barack Obama, elected president last month promising to curb the influence of corporate lobbyists and special interests and to change the way Washington works, continues to fill his administration with politicians steeped in the world of special favors and corporate welfare.

By naming New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce this week, Obama signaled that his Commerce Department will be an ally for any big businesses willing to go along with the administration’s aims....

Obama Thankful for Bailouts and Added Power

My November 28, 2009 column:

General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler all have come begging at the federal trough for a series of bailouts. In recent weeks, Democrats have made it clear what they will demand in exchange for the bailout cash: more attention to fuel-efficient cars, fewer gas guzzlers, more research into alternative-fuel-powered cars, and other green efforts.

It’s also obvious what the Democratic Congress won’t demand of Detroit—they won’t call on the Big Three to significantly renegotiate the absurdly generous pension plans the unions demanded and irresponsible past CEOs agreed to.

Goldman Sachs Will Be Sitting Pretty With Emanuel in the Obama White House

My November 21, 2008 Washington Examiner column:

An interesting early chapter in the Goldman-Emanuel relationship took place in the setting of Bill Clinton’s campaign for the White House in 1992. Clinton hired Emanuel as his chief fundraiser.

At the same time, however, Emanuel was on the payroll of Goldman Sachs, receiving $3,000 per month from the firm to “introduce us to people,” in the words of one Goldman partner at the time. This is certainly a noteworthy relationship, but it’s one that has almost entirely escaped scrutiny.

Corporations and partnerships are and were at the time prohibited by law from contributing to federal candidates out of the corporate coffers. So, while Rahm tapped Goldman employees personally for six figures in gifts to Clinton’s candidacy—more than any other firm—Goldman, as a company, was helping keep Clinton’s top fundraiser well-fed.

When you look at the explanations Goldman and Emanuel gave for Emanuel’s employment—he was advising on “local political races” or “introduc[ing] us to people”—it’s easy to suspect that Goldman was using firm money to fund the Clinton campaign by paying the campaign’s top fundraiser for nebulous “consulting” work—all while the campaign was in debt and delaying paychecks to campaign staff.

Emanuel Used Political Connections to Leverage Personal Wealth

My November 14, 2008 Washington Examiner column:

As a fundraiser, as a policymaker, and as a businessman, Emanuel has hitched himself to those businesses particularly dependant on government—and he has been rewarded nicely.

Studying Emanuel’s brief stint—between his “public service” jobs in the Clinton White House and the U.S. House of Representatives—as a corporate dealmaker provides insight into the functioning of the “revolving door” Obama seems to deplore.

Emanuel left the Clinton White House in late 1998 with a job offer in hand from investment banker Wasserstein Perella & Co. Emanuel, with no experience outside of politics and no MBA, took a high perch as a managing director at Wasserstein Perella, and proceeded to get very rich.

Surely Emanuel’s work ethic, focus, and effectiveness were critical to his job success, but looking at the deals he worked on, it’s unarguable that government connections were what made him the best man for the job.

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.