And soon he will be the next Sec Treasury .

The vote in the Senate Finance Committee was 19 to 5. Chairman Baucus and Ranking Republic Member Hatch voted Aye, Senator Chuck Grassley voted Nay and made an on the record statement against the nominee.

First, I am concerned by the attitude of this administration and its supporters who criticize the Senate, usually anonymously, for exercising basic due diligence regarding this nominee. They don’t like anyone questioning them, and they don’t like answering questions. Despite their tactics we must continue to perform the Senate’s vital role of advice and consent regarding nominees.

What we have seen so far is that Mr. Lew was very good at getting paid by taxpayer-supported institutions. Citigroup received a taxpayer-funded bailout and gave Mr. Lew a piece of it on his way out the door.

Tax-exempt New York University paid Mr. Lew an over $900,000 salary, paid his mortgage, and paid him a substantial $685,000 severance payment. The reason for the severance payment is still unclear. The amount was first reported in a New York Times article which calls it “unusual.” This must be further examined. It’s a shame that Mr. Lew failed to provide these details as part of his confirmation process, leaving us to rely on the press to dig out the details.

Mr. Lew’s eagerness and skill in obtaining bonuses, severance payments, and perks raise questions about whether he appreciates who pays the bills. As the Wall Street Journal said last week in reference to Mr. Lew’s past: “Investor in a Cayman Islands tax haven? Check. Recipient of a bonus and corporate jet rides underwritten by taxpayers at a bailed-out bank? Check. Executive at a university that accepted student-loan “kickbacks” for steering kids toward a favored bank? Check. Excessive compensation with minimal disclosure? Check.”
In fact, when asked basic questions like: What interest rate did you pay on your $1.4 million mortgage, Mr. Lew could not remember. That answer doesn’t pass the laugh test.

When asked about communications with Citigroup regarding student loan kickbacks, he responded that he couldn’t remember any.

Then, he and the administration made it clear that they had no intention of providing documents that might refresh his recollection and shed light on whether he was involved with those kickbacks.

Clearly, these questions don’t matter to them because they think they have the votes. But transparency and sunlight are essential for Congress and for the American people. If Mr. Lew will not answer our questions now, why should we expect him to answer any questions if he is confirmed? That is unacceptable, and for these reasons I will vote no on his nomination.”

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/02/26/grassley-votes-against-treasury-secretary-nominee-lew/article?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+desmoinesregister%2FNews+%28D esMoinesRegister.com+-+NEWS%29&nclick_check=1

Jack Lew is a classic Washington to Wall Street and back “revolving door” crony capitalist who's specialty is profiting while losing other people's money . That appears to be the perfect qualifier for Obama's Sec Treasury .

At Lew's confirmation hearing , an interesting detail about his employment contract with Citi emerged: a bonus meant to keep him at Citi... meaning he wouldn't get it if he quit... would still be granted on the condition that he left the bank for a "high level" position in the federal government.
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/BV_022113_233045.pdf (bottom page 3)

Of course we should not read any quid pro quo into that arrangement . One thing is certain . With this selection ,there is no reason for anyone to take the President's bleetings against corporate welfare and crony capitalism seriously again.

Of course we should not read any quid pro quo into that arrangement . One thing is certain . With this selection ,there is no reason for anyone to take the President's bleetings against corporate welfare and crony capitalism seriously again.

Yeah, I mentioned the Lew connections last week and it didn't even raise an eyebrow, just like Obama selling access to him for half a million (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?_r=2&). But who knows, maybe I'll be surprised this time.

Nah...

Does it include a night in the Lincoln Bedroom ?

"Of course we should not read any quid pro quo into the arrangement. One thing is certain, there is no reason for anyone to take the President's bleating against corporate welfare and crony capitalism seriously"

Tom, both parties are part of the ruling class. Didn't you read the Codevilla article? After all you posted it.

You also seems to take solace in supporting what you see as the lesser of two evils.Doesn't this make 'the many' "bitter courtiers?"

According to Codevilla you have an elitist hierarchical system of government. There is no "Leviathan State", only members (political and non-political) who have the credentials to participate in a power sharing arrangement.


Tut

Of course it's a Leviathan state . A massive bureaucratic state run by elites is almost the text book definition.

You also seems to take solace in supporting what you see as the lesser of two evils. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Hello tom:

I agree. Occupy a bank.

excon

Tom, both parties are part of the ruling class. Didn't you read the Codevilla article? After all you posted it.
This is 100% correct. They BOTH are like that.
If you cared about the politics if your country you'd be fighting for political reform for ALL who enter US politics instead of partisan posturing.

Hello again, tom:

Grand Old Parity
By SHEILA C. BAIR (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/opinion/republicans-must-bridge-the-income-gap.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130227)
I am a capitalist and a lifelong Republican. I believe that, in a meritocracy, some level of income inequality is both inevitable and desirable, as encouragement to those who contribute most to our economic prosperity. But I fear that government actions, not merit, have fueled these extremes in income distribution through taxpayer bailouts, central-bank-engineered financial asset bubbles and unjustified tax breaks that favor the rich.

This is not a situation that any freethinking Republican should accept. Skewing income toward the upper, upper class hurts our economy because the rich tend to sit on their money — unlike lower- and middle-income people, who spend a large share of their paychecks, and hence stimulate economic activity.

But more fundamentally, it cuts against everything our country and my party stand for. Government’s role should not be to rig the game in favor of “the haves” but to make sure “the have-nots” are given a fair shot. OCCUPY a bank.

Excon

government actions, not merit, have fueled these extremes in income distribution through taxpayer bailouts, central-bank-engineered financial asset bubbles and unjustified tax breaks that favor the rich.
I agree ;and Jack Lew is the personification of the problem ,as Tim Geithner was before him. You will recall that I've argued against all of the above in our discussions. I was against the bailouts ;I've opposed the poor money policies of the Fed ;and I'm all in favor of closing tax breaks as long as it is done in an over-all simplification of the tax codes ,and flattening of the tax rates .

Why haven't Republicans made an issue out of this?
I find it hard to believe that Bair does not know the answer to this . The problem is that the Republican Party is loaded with inside the beltway Repubics . Given a chance ,a TP takeover of the party ,or some other conservative grass roots movement will replace the Democrat -lites in the Republican party .

Hello again, tom:

It was only a matter of time before our newfound kinship crashed...

If you think the divide between rich and poor is the problem, the Tea Party will make it worse. Do YOU think they'll end carried interest? Will THEY raise the capital gains tax so the rich pay the SAME as everybody else?? If they don't DO that, and they won't, why do you think they'll end the disparity?

excon

Yes I think they will have a policy of simplifed tax code with closing loopholes.
You should know better than to argue for a higher cap gains tax . What does that gain except making us even less competitive in the global market ? I got a plan for the libs... put a tax on wealth instead of income and lets see how willing Warren Buffet is to go along with that !

The logic of us competing with 3rd world nations and old bankrupt ones escapes me. Shouldn't they be scrambling to emulate the best economy in the world?

I see no point in striving to be the best 3rd world nation on Earth, do you? Of course you do, Tom.

Umm ,in fact I'm arguing that our cap gains is too high and makes us less competitive with so called 1st world economies.

Hello again, tom:

I thought we agreed about a flat tax... Giving RICH people a break on their income is ANYTHING but flat. So, you meant flat, with the exceptions YOU like... I got it.

excon

What are you talking about ? A flat tax would eliminate a Cap Gains tax ;or it should ,because cap gains taxes are destructive.

Hello again, tom:


A flat tax would eliminate a Cap Gains taxIt would, but the flat tax the rich will pay isn't going to be CLOSE the 15% they're paying now.

So, before we proceed further, we need to attach NUMBERS to the proposal.. I proposed a flat tax with a SLIGHT bend at the top and one at the bottom. Now, I'm making this up, but if we did that, I'm guessing the middle rate would be around 20%. The bend at the top would have the rich paying 25%, and at the bottom, the poor would pay 15%.

What would YOU have them be?

Excon

That's about right... I called it a tiered flat ;but a bend is the same idea. The truth is that government revenues would soar . Capital that left the country would return rapidly .