We all knew that President Obama was in bed with the Chicago mob. Nobody rises that far that fast in Illinois politics otherwise. And the Chicago mob is in bed with the Unions. (For a comprehesive list of sources, see David Horowitz's The Shadow Party, chapter 9).
What did Obama voters who were fund managers or worked for them, or who were bond holders expect?
Those of us who read Mike Royko's Boss tried to tell them. (Yes, I'm that old and yes, I grew up in Illinois. New Mexico's corrupt patron system seems positively amateurish to me).
From The Business Insider:
" . . . sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.
The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election."
More links at the Wall Street Journal.
And here is an excerpt from a letter written by Clifton F. Asness, the founding principal of AQR Capital Management, and a man unafraid to speak his mind:
"The President has just harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration’s bid for their Chrysler bonds. He called them “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else” and who wanted “to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”
"The responses of hedge fund managers have been, appropriately, outrage, but generally have been anonymous for fear of going on the record against a powerful President (an exception, though still in the form of a “group letter,” was the superb note from “The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders,” some of the points of which I echo here, and a relatively few firms, like Oppenheimer, that have publicly defended themselves). Furthermore, one by one the managers and banks are said to be caving to the President’s wishes out of justifiable fear.
". . . Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice,” they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not.
"The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That’s how the system works. If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice,” you would not be happy. " (Emphasis mine. EHL)
Hat tip goes to Cafe Hayek: Speaking Truth to Power.
The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders statement ends with the most important point:
". . . As we all appreciate, laws are the foundation of our economy and society. Despite recent travails, our country remains the economic envy of the world and the United States remains a vital engine of global growth. The rule of law made it that way. We urge that people remember this and not succumb to unproductive and unwarranted finger pointing."
With his statement calling these organizations (who represent "teachers, pensioners, and retirees") "speculators" who are "unwilling to sacrifice," Obama clearly demonstrates that he may be a lawyer, but that he does not respect the rule of law. We learned this when we heard his Chicago Public Radio interview, when he stated that the Constitution is flawed because it does not allow the government to take your wealth and redistribute it to others. Normally, we call that theft.
Well, those Obama voters with money are learning. They will always lose to the Progressive thuggery that now resides in the White House. They will lose, no matter how pristine their political credentials are, no matter how they protest. They will lose, because they have something to loot. In the immortal words of Willie Sutton, "That's where the money is."
And nobody knows how to loot like a Chicago politician.
Welcome to lawlessness, Chicago Mob style.
Who will Obama come after when he is finished looting Wall Street? He and his ilk will come after you and me. And our children.
He is already doing it. He is going after the funds of teachers and retirees in order to pay off his political obligations. Politicians and mobsters will take from us what they cannot produce.
Get ready to be looted.