The Man in Charge of $700 Billion

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 11:59

So Paulson puts 35 year old tech investment banker from Goldman Sachs, Neel Kashkar, in charge of the $700 billion fund. I'm trying to find out more, this guy was a donor to George Bush and a tech banker in San Francisco that worked on 'advising public and private companies on mergers, acquisitions and financial transactions.' He's a senior advisor to Paulson at Treasury and he's also in charge of Treasury's website.

In general, I'm not a huge fan of 2004 Bush max out donors. Goldman people are extremely tight, and it looks like Kashkari is one of Paulson's key lieutenants, and he negotiated the bailout deal itself.

And a new Villager arrives.

... Watching his confirmation hearings, his responsibilities at Treasury were to increase free trade, reduce our dependence on oil through conservation and alternative energy deployment, and respond to the Housing crisis by working to ensure a flow of capital through the private sector to the housing sector while minimizing the spillover of the housing deflation to the rest of the economy.

Not promising.

Matt Stoller :: The Man in Charge of $700 Billion

Tags: bailout, Hank Paulson, John McCain, Barack Obama, Neel Kashkari, financial meltdown, finance, economy, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

The Man in Charge of $700 Billion | 14 comments

His bio (0.00 / 0)

says he was responsible for:

developing and executing the Department's response to the housing crisis, including the formation of the HOPE NOW Alliance, the development of the subprime fast-track loan modification plan, and Treasury's initiative to kick-start a covered bond market in the United States.

The Departments response to the housing crisis? Yeah, that was a big success (although, of course, it wasn't all on him.)

Matt, you should mention that this is subject to Senate confirmation.

by: david mizner @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 16:07:03 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

is it? (0.00 / 0)

I wasn't aware of that. Do you have a source on that?

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 16:14:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

This is (0.00 / 0)

from Bloomberg. It's ambiguous, suggesting that he could be named but not nominated "officially."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...

Senate confirmation is required to fill the position for which Kashkari will be nominated. The Treasury hasn't specified the length of Kashkari's tenure, or whether the White House would nominate him officially. The Bush administration remains in office until January.

by: david mizner @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 16:24:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

another way around oversight? (0.00 / 0)

Thx for this update.

NoSlaves.com

The Economic Populist

by: Robert Oak @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 19:35:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Great. (0.00 / 0)

Heckuva job, Kashie. Yeah.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act. There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy." -----Lady Sally McGee

by: mantis @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 19:54:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

At least the guy isn't merely a republican, (0.00 / 0)

but actually qualified in the field. That shows that really Paulson, and not Bush, chose him for the job.

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 16:13:55 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

where (0.00 / 0)

Why would you say that? He's certainly credentialed and highly intelligent. What makes you think he's not a Republican?

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 16:29:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

"merely" (0.00 / 0)

Before a fight starts, I think Gray agrees he is a Republican.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 16:43:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I guess so, (0.00 / 0)

but this simply wasn't the important point. Thx for understanding this.

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 16:45:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

not MERELY a republican (0.00 / 0)

I admit I can't handle the language like a native, but imho I made the point clear for readers that pay attention. For the others:
merely republican = no other qualification
actually qualified = has sufficient knowledge and experience to do the job. This doesn't exclude him being a republican, but this waqsn't the main reason he was chosen.

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 16:44:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

why? (0.00 / 0)

But why make this distinction? Was Alito 'unqualified'? Or Roberts? Or Rumsfeld? Or Marty Feldstein, going back to the Reagan era? Or Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel prize? Many of these people have long histories of elite credentials, and the right has a very sophisticated intellectual apparatus that is now mainstreamed.

I guess the difference here is that I have no faith in elite credentials but I do believe that partisan affiliations tell us a lot about the person, while you believe that partisan affilations are less significant than elite credentials. It's a question of values. I don't believe the people who succeed in this system necessarily have good judgment. The best you can say for Kashkari is that he's an elite technocrat rather than a partisan warrior, but I'm (a) not sure that's true and (b) not sure it matters.

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 16:57:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It's a matter of the proper sequence (0.00 / 0)

First it should be checked if someone is qualified, and only if it is neccesary if his party affiliation makes his appointment a smart political move. With Bush, it's always the other way round. And that he chose some guys that were actually qualified (Alito, ok, but NOT Roberts) isn't evidence against the rule.

"It's a question of values."
Always? Wait a moment, aren't we ALL against the rethugs making appointments for the DOJ primarily based on ideological 'righteousness'? Do you suppose Obama's future Attorney General should behave the same way as Gonzalez???

"I have no faith in elite credentials"
Uh huh. Well, you went to Harvard and made you BA in history there, so I'm sure you're speaking from personal expriences. I guess it must have been a hell of a time there.
:-/

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 17:15:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no (0.00 / 0)

Wait a moment, aren't we ALL against the rethugs making appointments for the DOJ primarily based on ideological 'righteousness'?

No, I'm not and you're not. I want people interested in enforcing the law evenly. That's an ideologically liberal position. I do not think it is correct to appoint well credentialed conservatives to the DOJ, as they will use their time to engage in voter suppression.

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 20:29:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't count me in! (0.00 / 0)

"I'm not and you're not."
No, I'm not generally against conservatives in such positions. Don't forget, the attorneys that were fired for coutrageously refusing to play dirty games were conservatives, too.

by: Gray @ Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 21:07:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]