START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,189,641 people care about Politics

5 Obama Appointees with Wall Street Ties

5 Obama Appointees with Wall Street Ties

Uh-oh, President Barack Obama has done it again: appointed yet another friend of Wall Street to an important government position. Not only do these appointments introduce a number of conflicts of interest, but they also beg a critical question: why does a President who vows to hold the banks responsible keep giving power to friends of these same banks? Here are 5 alarming examples:

1. Mary Jo White

The most recent example is this year’s appointment of Mary Jo White to the head of the SEC. In this role, White will be tasked with regulating the banks and keeping them in line. However, the problem is her preparation for this role. For the previous ten years, White has served as a defense attorney for Wall Street banks. Having made a fortune from these big businesses, we are now being expected to trust that she’s prepared to turn on her former allies and hold them responsible for the same crimes she helped them mitigate in the past.

The administration has already faced accusations of going notoriously soft on the banks and so the solution was to appoint more of the same?

2. Jeffrey Immelt

Facing a flailing economy and lofty unemployment, Obama created the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness to find solutions for one of the nation’s largest problems. Good idea, except that in 2011, Obama named Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, to head this council. As CEO, Immelt had accepted government bailouts and still sent many jobs overseas, while using most of the money to pay out top execs rather than lower employees.

It seems pretty ludicrous to put a man who exported jobs in his own company in charge of stimulating job growth domestically. Many considered the move to be Obama extending an olive branch to big business rather than an attempt to help the average American. Indeed, Immelt’s suggestions were to cut taxes on business to aid in job recovery: a policy that would line his own pockets, not most others’.

3. Gene Sperling

When Obama named Gene Sperling the chair of his National Economic Council, there was concern that the man was too entrenched with big corporations to be impartial. Sperling was able to argue that he worked only part-time for Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs. Still, this consulting working netted him over $1 million annually.

Interestingly, Wall Street and other parties involved merely laughed off the criticism. Their argument was that Sperling had only been paid $1 million, which was hardly a high enough amount to taint him. Perhaps the fact that that they consider that amount chump change is a large part of the problem.

4. Lawrence Summers

Sperling isn’t Obama’s only chief of the National Economic Council with strong Wall Street connections. Having made millions as a director at D.E. Shaw and a handful of other top banks, Lawrence Summers was a peculiar choice if Obama was hoping for substantial change. A long-time advocate for bank deregulation, he has a history of looking out for the interests of corporations rather than the majority of American citizens.

5. William Daley

Similar murmurs were heard when Obama named William Daley, a bigwig at JP Morgan his chief of staff, arguably one of most powerful positions in all of U.S. government. With nearly 8 million dollars invested in banking industry stocks, it would seemingly be impossible for his holdings not to cloud his decisions. Considering that – for better or worse (hint: worse) – the financial institutions are tied up in just about every aspect of government, Daley could hardly be considered impartial.

 

This list is by no means exhaustive. Other articles have done a good job compiling the surprising number of Wall Street-made millionaires who take turns on Obama’s staff, many of whom are given million-dollar farewell bonuses from their companies days before teaming with Obama as a likely gesture of “don’t forget us when you’re in power.” Combine that with the fact that Obama seems particularly keen to give government positions to his top fundraisers, and you have a lot of rich people making critical decisions about the welfare of the middle and lower classes.

While it makes sense that the President would choose to surround himself with individuals with a proven track record of success, surely there are other ways to define “success” besides making millions of dollars as a Wall Street executive. If that is a main criteria for obtaining an important position in government, we cannot reasonably expect anything but a corporatocracy to emerge.

 

Related Stories:

Did the White House Even Try to Prosecute Wall Street Execs?

Washington’s Wall Street Sugar Daddies

Justice Department Won’t Prosecute Goldman Sachs

 

Read more: , , , , , , , , ,

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

85 comments

+ add your own
4:40AM PDT on Apr 27, 2013

Obama's a liberal! No, he's no liberal. Not even close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqsd0WNl8u0

3:52AM PDT on Apr 27, 2013

This is just crony politics. Instead of doing what's best for our great country, he's rewarding friends.

10:05AM PDT on Apr 24, 2013

As it was said here, still better than Romney.

3:44AM PDT on Apr 13, 2013

It makes much more sense when we remember that we were told that it would not happen.

2:52PM PDT on Apr 10, 2013

Sorry about the post that is ended as it did.. Cat jumped up on the keyboard.

2:51PM PDT on Apr 10, 2013

Look President Obama made decision based on what was realistic.. Not by ideology of the candidates.

Yes, they have wall street connections. But who was he supposed to pick.. Any one? No? then understand this my very liberal colleagues. Sometimes in politics there are going to be people in positions of trust and authority. That you are not either ideologically or philosophically agree with at all.

Now allow me to point out a opinion of mine.. President Obama is a liberal republican. For those who have grown up with republican party as a hard right theocratic march to the same tune autocratic party.. Once way back in the 1970's there was such an animal.. It is where the blue dog democrats came from as a faction with in the democratic party in the 1980's.

To the conservatives on this board.. It is the prerogative of every liberal, moderate or otherwise, to disagree with each other and a sitting President. No matter what party he, and one day she, happens to be a leading while president.

It really does make being liberal fun.

2:32PM PDT on Apr 10, 2013

Look President Obama made decision based on what was realistic.. Not by ideology of the candidates.

yes they have wall street connections. But who was he supposed to pick.. Any one? No? then understand this my very liberal colleagues. Sometimes in politics there are going to be people in positions of trust and authority. That you are not either ideologically or philosophically agree with at all.

Now allow me to point outn

11:27AM PDT on Apr 10, 2013

Agreed. These were poor choices.

10:49PM PDT on Apr 9, 2013

But I STILL say Obama's better than Romney!

10:47PM PDT on Apr 9, 2013

and the trash continues to pile up!! I suppose Obama hasn't "changed" at all--what we're seeing is the real "him".
Yes, he must reward his monied friends, but he also seems to sway with the wind--he seems to not even have loyalty to his own promises.
I'd love to be wrong, and I hope I am, but, so far he has shown himself to be a spineless pos. "Compromise"--no, he's giving away the farm, the land, and the future, IMHO.
So, no Ron, this "hopey changey thing" isn't working out for me--though I couldn't help but laugh when I read it--I just love your unique way with words!
Oh, and don't forget Obama's regrettable (to me) appointments from Monsanto and Wal-mart--like we needed them in the mix!! What is this anyway--"no rich, corrupt business left behind"?

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

Matt: "Any post that claims you can make a bunch of money on the Internet without any real effort is…

well Suba .. I think .. Because OUR PHYSICAL Actions .. AFFECT our Spirituality .. what we DO . Show's…

This is so wrong. Again, our government sells out to big corporations, and our environment suffers. BP…

Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!

more from causes




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.