The other day as I was checking out various online news sites, I came across an article from Bloomberg via Yahoo titled Paulson to Discover Fate of his $500 Million Fortune.
Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) — Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a $500 million man when he entered office, said he’s about to discover how much of his fortune remains after two years of financial market turmoil.
“I’ve got to find out where my money has been invested,” Paulson, 62, said today after a speech, drawing laughter from the Washington Economic Club.
The former chairman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. sold his 3.23 million shares of the investment firm before he was sworn in as Treasury secretary in July 2006. As a government worker, he’s bound by ethics rules that require him to put his wealth in a blind trust and in assets that don’t present conflicts of interest.
Now this got me to thinking about how some of the so-called "blind trusts" used by politicians turned out to be not-so-blind after all. While trading emails, a friend reminded me of 1988, when Poppy Bush pointed out that Bob Dole and Liddy Dole’s Trust might not have been so blind:
A day after Vice President Bush challenged Senator Bob Dole to make his tax returns public, the Bush campaign began sending reporters copies of an article in a small Kansas newspaper that raised questions about a real estate transaction by a blind trust belonging to the Senator’s wife, Elizabeth Hanford
(Note: I don’t recall any complaints from the right about Liddy going by her maiden name at the time, but that’s another diary for another time.)
Then in more recent times, I recall that Senator Bill Frist’s "Blind Trust" wasn’t so blind either:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was given considerable information about his stake in his family’s hospital company, according to records that are at odds with his past statements that he did not know what was in his stock holdings.
Managers of the trusts that Frist once described as "totally blind," regularly informed him when they added new shares of HCA Inc. or other assets to his holdings, according to the documents.
So now we have Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and his blind trust. I raise the point because of the name of one of the trusts involved:
According to disclosure filings he signed in May 2008 that list his financial assets in ranges, more than $50 million of Paulson’s money was in the HMP Qualified Blind Trust.
Why does this bother me? Because the word "Qualified" has multiple meanings. From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
1 a: fitted (as by training or experience) for a given purpose : competent b: having complied with the specific requirements or precedent conditions (as for an office or employment) : eligible
2: limited or modified in some way
Now the definition that most folks would accept is 1b, that is, the trust complies with the specific requirements. My concern is that it can also be 2, which would make it maybe not-so-blind.
With the billions of dollars that Paulson has been shoveling out the Treasury to bail out his Wall Street compadres these last few months, this may be much ado about nothing.
But because of those billions of dollars used to bail out his compadres (including his former firm, Goldman Sachs) it seems quite irresponsible not to speculate





7 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Thank you for Digging
i hope he lost every brass farthing and has to wash dishes 4 evah
Paulson is going to be richer that he was before. These Blind Trusts are obviously not blind at all.
DUGG and recommended. Thank you dakine01. I’ve wanted this subject to be opened up ever since Paulson presented the senate with his stick-up note.
The question has been raised several times as to why the banks will not reveal what they did with the bail-out money they received. All those billions and lending has not loosened up.
Once again the Deep Throat quote, “follow the money” may reveal whether Paulson (and others controlling the bail-out) may have been protecting their own interests.
I read an online report that Paulson came to Treasury in 2006 as the richest man in the cabinet @ $700 million. A later report stated that he had lost about $350 million in the melt-down. hmmmm, well, if he knows nothing about ‘where his money is’, how did it get reported about his big loss?
I’ll search and try to find the links again and post them.
Hank Paulson should be in prison
I also want to know what conflict of interests roil through the House and the Senate.
I happen to share that view, but don’t have the legal cred to back it up.
Dakine, if you can get your hands on a copy of the book “Other People’s Money,” you’ll get some glimpses of Paulson at GS before he went to DC that you may find of interest.
Between Paulson, Greenspan, and Bush, it’s hard to believe there were that many Bubble Boys in this solar system.