Sunday, April 18, 2010

Goldman, John Paulson, and "Financial Reform" in Obamanation

Obama-gogues trashing taxpaying, job-creating corporations once again as market tanks on Friday.

By now, all the money fans in the audience will be familiar with the SEC allegations against investment banking giant Goldman-Sachs, viz., Goldman allegedly sold highly defective mortgage security tranches (codenamed "Abacus") to its valued customers so that investing bigwig and whale/hedgie John Paulson could short them. Tigerhawk writes:
By now, everybody knows that the Securities and Exchange Commission is bringing an enforcement action against the world's most consistently profitable investment bank, Goldman Sachs, for allegedly structuring a complex mortgage securities transaction for the benefit of John Paulson, a hedge fund operator. The New York Times has a fairly comprehensive write-up in today's paper edition. Outside the Beltway covers the waterfront. Interestingly, the SEC is not bringing an action against the supposed beneficiary, billionaire Paulson. By way of explanation, the SEC says that Paulson did not actually make any "misrepresentations" in the deal.

Well, no, but is it really the case that the SEC could not find a conspiracy or aiding and abetting claim to file?
More likely, the SEC did not go after Paulson, the dude who actually seems to have profited from this alleged fraud, because they want him to be a friendly witness against big, bad, Goldman Sachs.
Well, the "friendly witness" part might be true. But think harder, Tiger. Remember Deep Throat. Follow the money.  According to RightPundits' Andrew Zarowny:
John Paulson, the other major player in the Abacus scheme, just recently held a large fund raiser for Charles Schumer. Chris Dodd has also been a major recipient of campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs, as has Barney Frank and even Joe Biden (before his promotion). This could turn out to be a real can of worms!
Chucky and Chrissy couldn't possibly be shielding their pal from the investigation, could they? While Dodd is out after 2008 due to fallout from his own financial scandals, Schumer is eager to be re-elected so he can continue demagoguing for another 6 years from his bully Capitol Hill pulpit. Why diss a major donor? A "friendly witness" can be co-opted to keep those campaign funds flowing.

While we're on the subject, here's a related irony. Goldman and most other Wall Street firms and bigwigs donated lavishly to the Barack Obama presidential campaign in 2008. Now most of them, including Goldman execs, have been heard crying in their beer.

But JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon, a lifetime Democrat and another big Obama supporter in 2008, at least now has the guts to oppose this administration's generalized trashing of select business segments to aggressively advance its socialist legislative agenda. The Saul Alinsky way, that is, i.e., "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it." Where's everyone else in the NYC financial community? Targeted, frozen, personalized, and polarized, no doubt.

I pointed out several times in 2008--before the Obama-ites even had the opportunity to act on their big-business-bashing redistributionist agenda--that Wall Street's elite clowns were cruising for a bruising. By supporting a Democrat, whose hard-left bonafides were blatantly obvious to anyone who chose to look past the MSM's cheerleading efforts, they ended up slitting their own collective throat. No one bothered to investigate beyond the hype. Absolutely no one. They were too busy "making history" in November 2008. (While the media was too busy dumpster-diving in Wasilla, Alaska.) That's what happens when rich fat cats work with the media to turn national elections into a bad imitation of American Idol.

The chickens have now come home to roost. So much for the "smart money."

For whatever reason, most Wall Streeters seem genetically inclined to support Democrats in local and national elections. All the time. This simply baffles me.

Such a mindlessly reflexive voting pattern may have been okay a couple of generations ago when the average Democrat was a World War II veteran and really loved this country and what it stood for. But this once-great party--of which I myself was once a member--was definitively taken over by the hard left in 1972. It's only gotten worse since then, more anti-American, more anti-business, and more anti-middle class.

Without a doubt, it's time for real capitalists to start defunding the hard left and stop encouraging them in their mindless pursuit of a mythic socialist, post-colonialist utopia.

UPDATE: This just in from NYPost:
Wall Street is more than a little suspicious of today’s charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has accused Goldman Sachs of lying to investors about who was really behind junk mortgages securities it sold to clients.

Barclays banking analyst Roger Freeman comes right out and blasts the SEC effort as “a well-timed, and perhaps not coincidental, effort to sway some on-the-fence Republicans” to get tough on financial reform. 
Well-timed and not coincidental? Gee, ya think guys? Read the rest via the link above.

No comments: