Geithner Enlists Lobbyist As Top Aide

[smokeyjoe]

Newly installed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner issued new rules Tuesday restricting contacts with lobbyists ? and then hired one to be his top aide. Mark Patterson, a former advocate for Goldman Sachs, will serve as chief of staff to Geithner as the Treasury Department revamps the Wall Street bailout program that sent an infusion of cash to his former employer. Patterson?s appointment marks the second time in President Barack Obama?s first week in office that the administration has had to explain how it?s complying with its own ethics rules as it hires a bevy of Washington insiders for administration jobs. Last week, the White House announced the president had waived the ethics rules to clear the way for the nomination of William Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist, to be deputy defense secretary. ?This is exactly the kind of thing that makes the American public suspicious of politicians. You say one thing and do another,? said Melanie Sloan, founder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Treasury spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter lauded Patterson?s ?long history of public service in the U.S. Senate, both as a staff director of the Senate Finance Committee and policy director for the Senate leader. ?He brings significant expertise to the job of chief of staff and has agreed to a far-reaching ethics pledge to remove any hint of a conflict of interest,? she added. According to that pledge, Patterson will be prohibited for the next two years from participating in Treasury decisions related to Goldman Sachs and the specific issues on which he lobbied. Still, Sloan and financial service lobbyists question how Treasury will make those determinations. ?Goldman so permeates the markets, how can you separate them out?? Sloan asked. Patterson was a registered lobbyist for Goldman Sachs from 2005 until April of 2008. Lobbying disclosure forms suggest he represented the financial giant on a wide array of issues, including visas, tax credits for cellulosic ethanol and an Indian gaming facility in New York state. His reports also list a July 2007 meeting at Treasury, but sources familiar with the meeting say it was an informational session about Goldman?s business practices organized at the department?s request. The Treasury lobbying rules issued by Geithner Tuesday would restrict department lobbyist contacts connected to applications for funding from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and those associated with banks receiving government assistance. Geithner also pledged that only banks recommended by top regulators would be eligible for TARP funding and that a detailed description of the review process would be made public. ?American taxpayers deserve to know that their money is spent in the most effective way to stabilize the financial system,? Geithner said in a statement. ?Today?s actions reaffirm our commitment toward that goal.?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18047.html

It seems the corporate-government relationship is just too entrenched. Is it impossible to find a qualified candidate who does not have a conflict of interest?

 

[Genx87]

I feel for Obama in a way if he truely believed what he has enacted. DC is an entirely different world. Now if he said it just to appease people then the criticism is warranted.

Either way /facepalm at the tax skipping treasury sec restricting lobbyists then hiring one for himself.

 

[SAWYER]

Apologists in 3..2...

 

[Farang]

..1..

These ethics pledges Obama made are going to bite him in the ass because people hate nothing more than a hypocrite, and even though he is doing very well keeping lobbyists out now he will not get any credit for it but instead be burned every time something like this happens.

edit: from what I can tell the Lynn criticism was unwarranted though, in this case I don't see any excuse

 

[Ozoned]

The appointee received one of them waivers. William Lynn to get one also.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: Farang
..1..


edit: from what I can tell the Lynn criticism was unwarranted though, in this case I don't see any excuse

Just curious why you say that?

Part of me says it is difficult to avoid this kind of thing after decades of lobbyists moving through the revolving door and it becoming standard practice. The other part thinks this kind of corporatism is extremely dangerous.

I like how Eisenhower put it in his farewell address, regarding the military/industrial complex -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

 

[babylon5]

First Paulson, now Patterson -- Goldman Sachs has so many good friends in government.

 

[DealMonkey]

I thought Obama's rules with regards to lobbyists was such that it allows lobbyists to join the administration as long as they don't work on the subjects they tried to influence for a period of two years? AFAIK, there's nothing in Obama's executive order that says you absolutely cannot hire them.

 

[Robor]

You mean Obama didn't turn around Washington DC in a week? Please begin impeachment proceedings immediately!

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

Originally posted by: Farang
..1..


edit: from what I can tell the Lynn criticism was unwarranted though, in this case I don't see any excuse

Just curious why you say that?

Part of me says it is difficult to avoid this kind of thing after decades of lobbyists moving through the revolving door and it becoming standard practice. The other part thinks this kind of corporatism is extremely dangerous.

I like how Eisenhower put it in his farewell address, regarding the military/industrial complex -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Well, he could say and then do but then draw fierce criticism when on one or two occasions he doesn't do.

Or he could just do, and then let his media plants (not bashing the media, all successful politicians have their outlets) notice it later. He could also cite an 'unprecedented effort to root out the influence of lobbyists' which would look very authentic and positive, but now with this pledge his one or two lobbyists look horrible.

edit: I think overall though it will still end up looking good so long as more of these exceptions don't come out, like I said Lynn was justified and nobody is going to care if they had to twist the rules to let one or two others in out of hundreds of staffers. I don't see the Treasury secretary's pick for chief of staff making headlines.

 

[frostedflakes]

Damnit, and this is like the one area of government where we absolutely don't need anymore conflicts of interest. Paulson has already done plenty to help his old GS buddies at the expense of taxpayers.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I thought Obama's rules with regards to lobbyists was such that it allows lobbyists to join the administration as long as they don't work on the subjects they tried to influence for a period of two years? AFAIK, there's nothing in Obama's executive order that says you absolutely cannot hire them.

Straight from Obama - it appears you are correct. It is my opinion then that the order is nothing more than a facade. Even if this guy is not allowed to participate on just Goldman Sachs specific issues, I think his interests will still be with his banking buddies - I have no faith in bankers.

http://video.nytimes.com/video...s-on-transparency.html about 3:00

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I thought Obama's rules with regards to lobbyists was such that it allows lobbyists to join the administration as long as they don't work on the subjects they tried to influence for a period of two years? AFAIK, there's nothing in Obama's executive order that says you absolutely cannot hire them.

Straight from Obama - it appears you are correct. It is my opinion then that the order is nothing more than a facade. Even if this guy is not allowed to participate on just Goldman Sachs specific issues, I think his interests will still be with his banking buddies - I have no faith in bankers.

http://video.nytimes.com/video...s-on-transparency.html about 3:00

you still have no clue....while of course you are allowed to have an opinion...what is an opinion if its based on nothing more than I have an opinion?

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

you still have no clue....while of course you are allowed to have an opinion...what is an opinion if its based on nothing more than I have an opinion?

It is what it is and it's based on Obama's executive order and what has happened since then.. it's open to debate and you are welcome to offer another view

 

[bozack]

unsurprising for this administration...looking forward to four years of this simply for the laugh factor as we get flushed further down the toilet.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Robor
You mean Obama didn't turn around Washington DC in a week? Please begin impeachment proceedings immediately!

no he George Bushed it.

Lets put the foxes in charge of the chicken coup.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Out of fairness to Obama, I think this is more a PR issue than anything else...unfortunately, the way DC works, there are some very competent and capable individuals who worked as lobbyists...largely because corporations and special interests will hire top tier talent to represent them in Washington.

There is no reason why the Obama Administration cannot tap into this resource pool, so long as there is no conflict of interest...that is the reasonable assessment.

However...Obama did run as a candidate for change, and hiring lobbyists, however sensible that decision may be, smells of old Washington politics.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

However...Obama did run as a candidate for change, and hiring lobbyists, however sensible that decision may be, smells of old Washington politics.

just post that last line and you have a good post! Why should we be fair to Obama ? Fair= kid gloves?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Out of fairness to Obama, I think this is more a PR issue than anything else...unfortunately, the way DC works, there are some very competent and capable individuals who worked as lobbyists...largely because corporations and special interests will hire top tier talent to represent them in Washington.

There is no reason why the Obama Administration cannot tap into this resource pool, so long as there is no conflict of interest...that is the reasonable assessment.

However...Obama did run as a candidate for change, and hiring lobbyists, however sensible that decision may be, smells of old Washington politics.

So why the stink over Cheney? Oh that's right, he's a Republican.

The spin in this forum would make a merry-go-round jealous.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Out of fairness to Obama, I think this is more a PR issue than anything else...unfortunately, the way DC works, there are some very competent and capable individuals who worked as lobbyists...largely because corporations and special interests will hire top tier talent to represent them in Washington.

There is no reason why the Obama Administration cannot tap into this resource pool, so long as there is no conflict of interest...that is the reasonable assessment.

However...Obama did run as a candidate for change, and hiring lobbyists, however sensible that decision may be, smells of old Washington politics.

So why the stink over Cheney? Oh that's right, he's a Republican.

The spin in this forum would make a merry-go-round jealous.

Hey, that's just "the way DC works," you can't expect Obama to, errr, uhhh, change that.

Edit: Well, he did say "I'm not running to be the president who plays the same old game. I'm running to end the game." So I dunno.

 

[babylon5]

Love the spinning!

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: bozack
unsurprising for this administration...looking forward to four years of this simply for the laugh factor as we get flushed further down the toilet.

At least this is growth. You admit we've been flushed down the shitter the past 8 years. But you take 2 steps backwards condemning Obama to the same fate less than a month into his presidency.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

you still have no clue....while of course you are allowed to have an opinion...what is an opinion if its based on nothing more than I have an opinion?

It is what it is and it's based on Obama's executive order and what has happened since then.. it's open to debate and you are welcome to offer another view

So you admit you did not read the article? or did you not comprehend the artilce?

Let me refresh your mind--
Treasury spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter lauded Patterson?s ?long history of public service in the U.S. Senate, both as a staff director of the Senate Finance Committee and policy director for the Senate leader.

?He brings significant expertise to the job of chief of staff and has agreed to a far-reaching ethics pledge to remove any hint of a conflict of interest,? she added.

According to that pledge, Patterson will be prohibited for the next two years from participating in Treasury decisions related to Goldman Sachs and the specific issues on which he lobbied.

Still, Sloan and financial service lobbyists question how Treasury will make those determinations. ?Goldman so permeates the markets, how can you separate them out?? Sloan asked.

Patterson was a registered lobbyist for Goldman Sachs from 2005 until April of 2008. Lobbying disclosure forms suggest he represented the financial giant on a wide array of issues, including visas, tax credits for cellulosic ethanol and an Indian gaming facility in New York state.

So I believe Obama`s "excutive order" was refering to active lobbyists!! Not anybody who ever was a lobbyist!!

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

you still have no clue....while of course you are allowed to have an opinion...what is an opinion if its based on nothing more than I have an opinion?

It is what it is and it's based on Obama's executive order and what has happened since then.. it's open to debate and you are welcome to offer another view

So I believe Obama`s "excutive order" was refering to active lobbyists!! Not anybody who ever was a lobbyist!!

You fault me for an opinion based on observation then make a false statement based on your "belief"

The executive order applies to lobbyists entering government who have lobbied within 2 years before the date of their appointment.