Posted by
nomi on Sunday, July 12, 2009 12:00:00 AM
ORIGINALLY POSTED IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR. IN LIGHT OF THE STIMULUS OF THIS YEAR THE DATA OF THAT TIME NEEDS REVISITING.
The biggest expenditure to date- initiated and pushed by senators and the president is the bail out. With this bail out we have a perfect illustration on how much it costs to buy our politicians. We only need to look at those corporations who benefit from this plan. This would be Goldman Sachs who gets to place employees of their companies in powerful posts. The latest position has been uniquely tailored to the biggest campaign contributor to congress and the president that goes to "Hank" Paulson. His job description is to direct all US tax dollars in an unlimited fashion to any financial institution he deems worthy. Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan(Chase), and Citi all have gained from the oppurtunities to buy up failing banks 10cents on the dollar. Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae escaped the normal consequences of jail and/or having officers give up compensation due to faulty accounting and gross mismanagement with a government bailout and compensation to officers in the tens of millions. AIG gets a bailout as well with government funding not afforded to your main street American Corporation now or ever.
Since the senators pushed hard to make sure this bail out was revived after a fair vote, we should look into campaign contributions given to these senators by the above heavy hitters. Can I hear the drum roll? Ready set go. In the 2008 campaign cycle Goldman Sachs contributed to federal elections a total of $5,272,501 as of August, Morgan Stanley a total of $3,092,200, JP Morgan a total of $3,374,517, and Citigroup a total of $4,097,512. Freddie Mac despite having a terrible year managed to contribute $479,317- 56% democrat and 44% republican. However, looking back to the years they contributed the most money is quite telling. The election cycle 2000 Freddie Mac was able to contribute $2,466,539 and in 2002 this amount was eclipsed and was $4,176,674 with 57% going to republican candidates and 43% going to democrat candidates. These were the years the president started pushing homeownership. AIG, also a company recieving favored treatment on the taxpayers back was still able to be one of the top contributors to key senators. Its funding of federal candidates so far in the 2008 (reported) election cycle has been $182,778. A great portion of this amount went to senators.
Before delving into which senator recieved the most contributions from the above, lets look at the presidents totals from same companies. Let us not forget that Henry Paulson is a Bush appointee, who just like the three previous treasury secretaries have come directly from Goldman Sachs. Mr. Paulson in particular was a key figure in loosening reserve requirements for banks, working together with Chris Dodd while at Golman Sachs. Back to the campaign conributions, drom roll please. Goldman Sachs $390,524, Morgan Stanley $625,880, JPMorgan $30,550, Citigroup $249,405, Freddie Mac $11,745, Fannie Mae $35,425, and AIG $26,360 for a total of $1,369,889. I am a believer that where there is smoke there is fire. Consider Bill Clinton and the cigar. There smoke was the cigar and the philandering was the fire. With Bush, the accusations are of croneism. This is why I believe he is not a good communicater, his passion is not in the supposed reasons behind his decisions but getting his supporters the positions they have come to expect. This is why governemnt has grown with a lot of newly created positions that end up being nothing but giveaways to states, consider Homeland Security.
Now for the meat of the data, contribution to the senators. Drum roll. Ready set go. Use the following key to decypher contributors, a) Goldman Sachs, b)Morgan Stanley, c)JP Morgan, d)Citgroup, e)Freddie Mac, f)Fannie Mae, g)AIG:
1. OBAMA a)$529,703 b)$316,854 c)$294,414 d)$464,654 e)$21,650 f)$82,399 g)$88,099 for a total of $1,797,773
2. CLINTON a)$371,300 b)$407,795 c)$175,680 d)$401,527 e)$13,050 f)$18,900 g)$44,281 for a total of $1,432,533
3. MCCAIN a)$193,320, b)$232,727 c)$67,916 d)$294,876 e)$9,850, f)$6,750 g)$42,275 for a total of $847,714.
4. DODD a)$105,400, b)$64,500 d)151,350 e)$19,600 f)18,850 g) $71,300 for a total of $431,000
5. BAUCUS a)$30,600 b)$18,500 c)$3,000, d)$23,500 g)$13,000 for a total of $88,600, Baucus is a member of the finance committee.
The next 20 senators that also were proponents of the bail out bill are:
6. REED- relevant committees Appropriations, Banking Housing & Urban affairs
7. BIDEN- presidential and vp candidate, Foreign Relations, Judiciary Committee
8. REID- Majority leader
9. SPECTOR- Appropriations, Judiciary
10 DURBIN- Appropriations, Judiciary, Rules &Administration, Majority Whip
11 MARTINEZ- Banking Housing&Urban Affairs
12 WARNER- Homeland Security, Sellect Intelligence
13 SUNUNU- Commerce Science &,Transportation, Homeland Security & Government Affairs, Small Business & Entrepreneurship(conflict of interest?)
14 COLEMAN-Foreign Relations,Homeland Security & Government Affairs
15 KYL- Finance Judiciary, Minority Whip
16 LINCOLN- Finance
17 LAUTENBERGER- Appropriations,Budget, Commerce Science &Transportation
18 HARKIN- Appropriations, Small Business & Entrepreneurship(conflict or irony?)
19 MCCONNEL-Appropriations, Rules & Regulations (yes I see the conflict here too and all of the above and below)
20 SALAZAR- Finance
21 COLLINS- Homeland Security & Government Affairs
22 BENNET- Appropriations,Banking Housing & Urban Affairs
23 HAGEL- Banking Housing & Urban Affairs, Foreign Relations, Select Intelligence, Rules & Administration
24 ROCKEFELLER- Commerce Science & Transportation, Finance, Select Intelligence
25 BOXER- Commerce Science & Transportation, Foreign Relations
So 73 Senators voted for this bailout that will hurt all Americans and give unlimited use of tax dollars to one man. One new position, in the face of a catastrophe we have faced before but in no time gone through such a contrived way to usurp power. Notice the whips of both parties are in the top 25 list. They sure whipped up the bill with $150 billion dollars of pork to get the other 50. The other 50 all recieved less than $20 k from the top 7 beneficieries of a bail out. So they are either incredibly cheap to buy are participants of the pork. In case any of you McCain supporters are cheering cause John took less than Hillary and Barry, don't go there. He is third, Mr. no earmarks said not a peep about the $150 bill. So corruption is good when it feeds his own agenda/campaign/brand of corruption. Remember, all of these candidates see the future fund raising dollars and benefits, not just those reported as of last August. The unlimited borrowing or even the stated will hurt main street with the devaluation of the dollar and the original problem of borrowing and not saving not stopped. This bill should have been called "how cheap is a senator?! act of 2008. " These big companies all had all the research and development on who to target for them to get the most bang for their buck and they chose the above to give their dollars to in the most targeted fashion. Profit from their expensive research and at least I know who I am voting for and it is no senator. FBI, what this doesn't smell? At a minimum their a Rico statutes and Federal anti-trust laws that may be relevant to this situation. No, accountability, no caps, and no limits on the veering from the constitution. It remains to be seen if Citigroup will be allowed to buy Wachovia for a song when Wells Fargo who has not contributed to the above is willing to buy Wachovia for much more than Citigroup one of the big seven.