If you have "no place to go," come here!

Outing Hillary's Wall Street Lackeys: Tom Nides and Robert Hormats

Rainbow Girl's picture

From The Guardian, "Hilary Clinton aides' Wall Street links raise economic policy doubts."

I am putting the names in bold: Tom Nides and Robert Hormats.

The person expressing "angst" about Hormats and Nides influencing a possible Hillary Clinton presidency is a Neil Sroka, spokesman for "progressive advocacy group Democracy in America." [Where has Sroka been during President Wall Street Obama's reign?]

Hormats and Nides are bad Neo-Liberal news, their true records need to be outed with their names attached and widely circulated. Taken as a composite, they gave us NAFTA, the deregulation of financial markets, and support privatizing Social Security taking Social Security contributions and giving them to Wall Street Money Managers.

I have distilled the chronologies of these two men's revolving-door shuffles from B Clinton White House and H Clinton's Department of State under Obama back into Wall Street, as reported in the Guardian article, gathering some further detail from other sources, links provided.

TOM NIDES, referred to as Clinton "confidant"

-- 1994 - According to his Wikipedia page Nides is Chief of Staff for Mickey Kantor, Bill Clinton's US Trade Representative - in that role, he is lauded for role in "the A Team that saved NAFTA's Bacon" in which he was George Stephanopolus's factotum in the nasty last-minute browbeating of Congress to get NAFTA passed.

--> 2001-2004 - Chief Admin Officer CREDIT SUISSE (USA). See Wikipedia page.

--> 2005-2010 - COO Morgan (Stanley)

The Guardian reports that after the GFC of 2007 Nides asks Obama to “find the right balance” in avoiding criticism of Wall Street in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

-- -> 2011-2013 Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources in Hilary Clinton's Department of State under Obama

**NOTE - NIDES is apparently (according to the Guardian) former Chairman of SIFMA, Wall Street's biggest lobby group in D.C.

ROBERT HORMATS, Clinton's "economic guru".

--> Vice-Chairman Goldman Saks

According to the Guardian, during his GS days, Hormats supported partial-privatization of Social Security (which sounds exactly like the trial balloons being whispered in public by Hillary's new Economic Policy person - Teresa Ghilarducci. (06/27/15 National Law Journal profile: "Who Invited Teresa Ghilarducci to the [Hilary Clinton] Table.")

I found the year 2000 CNN interview where Hormats most definitely expressed support for giving Wall Street Money Managers control of "part" of Social Security contributions. This, in response to questions about Bush's then proposals to give 100% of Social Security contributions to Wall Street Managers. Here's the relevant excerpt from that Hormats interview - read and weep:

Question from Elie: Mr. Hormats, doesn't Bush's proposal regarding Americans investing their own retirement monies -- in lieu of Social Security -- make fiscal/investment sense OR is it more akin to Gore's ditty: "A risky scheme"?

Robert Hormats: I think there are arguments for investing some portion of Social Security funds into stocks or bonds. But there are also major issues raised by such a policy.

One of them is: How do you finance the transition, because some of the money that will go into these individual funds is money that will not otherwise be going into the Social Security trust fund. So the question becomes: How do you make up the money lost by the Social Security trust fund?

And the second big question is: What happens if, in fact, the money invested in the private markets by individuals is lost because there is a substantial recession? That could mean that individuals get less out of this scheme than they would from traditional Social Security, and those people are highly likely to come to the federal government to get the additional money. {How Prescient!]

A potential compromise is to allow the federal government to use private sector money managers to invest a portion of Social Security receipts in the markets as opposed to having individuals do it in individual accounts.

-- -> 2009-2013 Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and Environment

-- -> then on to Vice-Chairman of Kissinger Associates.

According to the Guardian, in 2013 Hormats "boasted of the Clinton State Department’s support of the business community in a 2013 interview." (Guardian) I found the interview excerpts at CNBC here. The exact quote is:

"The business community would love her," he added. "One of the things we were able to do at State working together is be much more supportive of the business community, and much more supportive of the private sector."

HORMATS and NIDES have been Clinton Family advisers for decades now and strong advocates of the Neo-Liberal project to run the US economy for the benefit of the .01 Percent.

Mr. Sroka is right to have "angst" about Hillary's very close ties to these two long-time tethered-to-Wall Street Democratic operatives. Because if she wins the Presidency, her economic policies may just be what Hormats and Nides ordered. And there's plenty of information available to know what that pigs breakfeast looks like.

Average: 5 (1 vote)


Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

with former Democratic Senator Tom Harkin's scheme for mandatory (?) retirement accounts.

At one time, I found contradictory info on this particular feature (investing monies from private government retirement accounts). Everything from completely voluntary, to 'auto-enrollment-opt out,' to mandatory if an individual is not enrolled in a retirement plan.

Bottom line, the investment vehicle (a so-called hybrid) was not a fixed annuity--the benefit could go up and down with the market.

And, as my luck would have it, the one article that I found that appeared to be quite detailed [from the teaser], was pay-walled and restricted to industry insiders, IIRC. If I can find it, I'll try to post a C-Span video from several years ago when Harkin tried to sell this scheme on Washington Journal.

I'll go now and read the Guilarducci piece. She's not a liberal economist (IMO), but she's a pretty glib one who has technocratic neoliberal-speak down pat. You know, the kind that passes for 'liberal' much of the time, when cleverly and deceptively employed by corporatist Democrats and their shills.

Long time, no see--hope you're doing well.