The Long Crisis

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Here we go again. The SEC releases information about a recent promotion for yet another former Goldman Sachs executive who will have enforcement duties involving – yes, you guessed it, Goldman Sachs.

For those who’ve lamented the various links between Goldman Sachs and the financial regulatory system and the Federal government, this certainly isn’t the best of news.

Bloomberg reports that the Securities Exchange Commission has named Adam Storch, a former Goldman exec, as its enforcement division’s first chief operating officer. Storch is all of 29 years old and previously worked in Goldman’s business intelligence unit. I’m sure that he is a very smart guy but I do wonder about his level of experience and his ties to Goldman.

Here’s Bloomberg’s take on the matter:

“The COO, who started Oct. 13, has “a great deal of background” in technology and managing processes and the pace of work, Robert Khuzami, head of enforcement, said yesterday in Washington. Storch, who worked since 2004 in a unit at Goldman Sachs that reviewed contracts and transactions for signs of fraud, will be charged with making the unit more efficient. Storch, reached by telephone at the SEC, declined to comment.”

According to what appears to be his LinkedIn profile, Storch spent his undergraduate years at the State University Of New York At Buffalo, and earned an MBA from New York University’s Stern School Of Business. Other experience — besides Goldman — includes working as a Senior Analyst at Deloitte and Touche.

I guess it is truly more of In Goldman Sachs We Trust. Some even say that Goldman is the power behind the imperial presidency that has only expanded under first George W. Bush and now Barack Obama.

Read more at: Huffington Post

Tweet This Post

President Obama is working hard these days. Even with the ongoing economic crisis at home eating away at the viability of the United States like a cancer he is doubling down on the nation’s sorry bets on Afghanistan.

The President is doing his best to sell another round of a tired empire’s thinking to the American people. After a “long term review” his retreaded advisers including old Washington hands Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke, and the Bush era refugee Secretary of Defense Gates, decide that the best thing that the US can do is to add more troops, more money, more civilians, more territory, and more empire thinking to the mix.

The following is taken from Tom Dispatch. “The U.S. seems to be in the process of trading in a limited war in a mountainous, poverty-stricken country of 27 million people for one in an advanced nation of 167 million, with a crumbling economy, rising extremism, advancing corruption, and a large military armed with nuclear weapons. Worse yet, the war in Pakistan seems to be expanding inexorably (and in tandem with American war planning) from the tribal borderlands ever closer to the heart of the country.

These days, Washington has even come up with a neologism for the change: “Af-Pak,” as in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of operations. So, in the name of realism and accuracy, shouldn’t we retire “the Afghan War” and begin talking about the far more disturbing “Af-Pak War”?

And while we’re at it, maybe we should retire the word “surge” as well. Right now, as the Obama plan for that Af-Pak War is being “rolled out,” newspaper headlines have been surging when it comes to accepting the surge paradigm. Long before the administration’s “strategic review” of the war had even been completed, President Obama was reportedly persuaded by former Iraq surge commander, now CentCom commander, General David Petraeus to “surge” another 17,000 troops into Afghanistan, starting this May.”

To read the remainer of the article go to Tom Dispatch.

President Obama has truly doubled up by not only making the Afghanistan War his war but by expanding it to include Pakistan. With American drones already striking targets inside Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan strong anti American sentiment is spreading across an already unstable nuclear armed Pakistan. By widening the conflict Obama is playing a high stakes game. One where the odds are stacked against him and the US.

I lived in Pakistan for 30 months not long after the end of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. I lived in a very pleasant area of Lahore and enjoyed many social functions with my Pakistani neighbors. One of my next door neighbors was a retired Pakistani Army colonel and through his contacts I met many officers in the Pakistani military.

I was working as a financial consultant for a wealthy and prominent Pakistani family. Part of my responsibilities were to liaison with government officials in Islamabad. I relate this now only to make the point that I had many opportunities to see government, military, and business dealings in Pakistan from a close up inside the loop (as much as a foreigner is ever in the loop) perspective.

I don’t claim to be an expert on all matters related to Pakistan. After all I was there long ago. However, I dare say that by living in the local economy, and by working alongside prominent well educated Pakistanis rather than in an America bubble, I have more insight than most so called “experts” in Washington into the challenges presented by dealing with an explosive mix of 95% extremely poor and highly religious people in a large population of 170,000,000.

One of the first things one must learn about Pakistan is that the military is the only trusted institution in the country. The weak government in Islamabad that the Obama administration wants to bribe with an infusion of $1.5 billion a year for the next five years may be brought down by the very drone attacks that Obama is supporting. The Pakistani military can take charge anytime they choose and may feel that it has no choice as protests mount against the American attacks on Pakistan’s soil.

By expanding the war into Pakistan President Obama is risking the failure of his Presidency. The economic crisis at home should be his central focus but I fear that events could quickly spin out of control in the Af-Pak theater and high jack the Obama Presidency. By widening the conflict with Af-Pak Obama is risking it all.

Can anyone think of one disastrous term? Shouldn’t one at home economic disaster be enough for any President to deal with at one time?

Tweet This Post

Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP for the South East of England. In an European Parliament speech of 26/03/09 Mr. Hannan lam-blasts British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for his actions in trying to cure the considerable problems faced by an over leveraged and overly indebted British economy by issuing more debt and by nationalizing the banks and automotive industry.

As you will see in watching the video Daniel Hannan is a powerful speaker. It’s really tragic that the only man in Washington who knows what is coming down for the US and who has the guts to say so, Rep Ron Paul, is not as forceful of a speaker and about ten years to twenty years younger.

Then we might have elected a President who knows what needs to be done to get the nation back into decent shape and who would take the drastic steps needed to head off total disaster rather than taking the advice of already discredited Washington hands. The people who got us into this long crisis surely will not be able to get us out. Old recycled ideas that have never worked well are not going to cut it.

While I supported President Obama, and still think that he is the better choice for America than the erratic Senator John McCain, I do worry that Obama has too much respect and confidence in the economists, economic advisers, and military advisers that seem to be controlling his agenda. In the end it will be Obama that gets the blame or credit for the outcome of the long crisis. President Obama must start using his own good judgement or his Presidency will end in failure.

If he continues to listen to many of the same men and women who helped to get us into this mess he will end up being, to paraphrase the honorable Daniel Hanan, the devalued President of a devalued America.

Really Mr. President, it is not at all logical to increase debt by huge amounts and use additional excessive financial leverage to solve problems caused by excessive debt and excessive leverage. It is already most clear that early in your term you are headed down a rocky road that is leading to disaster.

And then there is the imperial hubris you are showing with your policy for Afghanistan. More disaster. Tragic disaster. But I will save that sad evaluation for another day.

Tweet This Post