What kind of person gives up a private sector, $30 million a year job...

[TechBear_Seattle]

... so that they can take up a high profile, high pressure public sector job that pays only $184,000 a year?

According to several news stations last night, Treasury nominee Henry Paulsen made just over $30 million dollars last year as CEO of Goldman-Sachs. What does he stand to gain by giving up that job in exchange for one working in a highly unpopular administration for relative chump change?

Curious minds want to know.

[liberalpress]

1. The answer...

...just about everybody in any kind of Public Service

[primative1]

2. Thats easy ...

Its simply the lure of getting to serve his country in time of need.

[Mr Rabble]

21. Right. Im sure he is just patriotic...

[liberal N proud]

3. Maybe because there is much more than $30 million to be made

UNDER THE TABLE?

Helping friends get rich while you get richer!

[fedupinBushcountry]

8. Agree n/t

[JuniperLea]

4. Follow the money

What is he invested in?

[Wickerman]

5. Prestige, history books, connections, etc.

and, its certain he will never make a paltry 30 mil a year again after 18 mos on the job.

[bowens43]

6. If he made 30,000,000

last year, why would money be an issue?

[keta11]

7. Last time I read he owns $1 billion in Goldman Sachs stock

so he probably doesn't need any more money.

Woe is me. I blew my Goldman Sachs interview when I was leaving school. I could tell the guy wanted to give me a job, too. I just blew it.

[peacetalksforall]

9. Is it possible that the 'barons' arranged this nomination? Does he

appear to belong to the inner circle of PNAC? Doesn't seem so.

[Lasher]

10. He took home $38 million

How could you expect him to squeak by on just $30 million last year?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/business/31pay.html?ex=1149739200&en=96f7c7555d6c09d1&ei=5043&partner=EXCITE

Gotta give CEOs that much so that we can attract the very best people. And the trickle down theory works.

[enigma000]

11. A chance to be at the helm of the world's largest economy?

An opportunity for public service?

Tempting for some.

A top Canadian CEO offered to leave the private sector and take the top position at the Public Appointments Commission for the Canadian government. For a salary of just 1 dollar a year.

He was rejected in committee for making controversial statements in the past.

[Virginia Dare]

12. My guess is...

he came "under pressure" to take it. They wanted Snow out badly, so they pretty much had to strong arm somebody...it's like jumping on the Titanic while it's already half under water. Nobody does that voluntarily.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. Well put, and exactly what I was thinking n/t

[Bonhomme Richard]

13. After making "X" amount of money it's...................

no longer about the dollars. Hell, he can already buy anything he wants. It's all about power and prestige.

[enlightenment]

14. To be fair, if someone we liked was the president and he

nominated someone we liked as Sec'y Treas. who made scads of money in the private sector, we'd think that nominee was a fine, upstanding, public-minded individual with a true sense of what's important.

This fella is something of a cypher; for all that's not 'right' he also heads the Nature Conservancy, something else that he doesn't have to do with all that cash in his pocket.

[keta11]

16. The strange thing was during the lead up to the

Iraq war, Paulson started popping up on cable TV discussing the strong merits of the invasion, and he was treated respectfully always as an astute expert on national security. I thought it was ridiculous - here was a banker who I am sure knew next to nothing about invading a sovereign country that didn't do anything to the US, and he kept getting the platform to spout rubbish.

[enlightenment]

18. That I did not know --

very interesting.

It is odd that leaders of finance have always been deemed as experts in all matters -- money talks, I guess.

I suspect that Paulson is as firmly in the administration pocket as everyone else they have nominated, but I simply don't know enough (and haven't had time to research) about him to form a firm opinion yet.

[keta11]

19. It was just so incongrous seeing him regularly

sandwiched between Generals and Admirals and the usual AEI wackos,espousing on the fine act of "taking out Saddam" and democratization, and the road to Israel/ Palestine peace led through Baghdad, blah blah..

I worked for a competitor to Goldman Sachs and having the CEO out there for airtime is important and stressed and all that but the context was just not right for the publicity angle I think he was trying to achieve.

[beaconess]

24. Like Bob Rubin - who left Goldman Sachs to be Clinton's Treasury Sec

The fact that a wealthy person gives up a high paying job to work in government is not, in and of itself, a reason to suspect him. In fact, that could be, as you suggest, an indication that he's doing just what we claim the wealthy should do - give back to their country.

It's the stench of this particular Administration, not the fact that he gave up a big money job, that makes this guy suspect.

[enlightenment]

27. It does permeate everything, doesn't it?

We'd have less trouble getting rid of skunk stink.

[Orangepeel]

15. because he already has more money than he can spend?

For someone with that much money, money becomes nothing more than a way to keep score. They can't possibly spend it, so what's more money worth except as a power thing. Two years of a different kind of power and something to write a book about? What's so surprising?

[underpants]

20. Actually NPR had a piece on this this very morning.

Goldman Sachs actually encourages its partners to leave and do public work. Basically they stay on for about 10 years and then with XXX millions they are free to do public service. GS also is very team oriented ("We say 'we' here") not individually, hotdog oriented.

Rubin and others were GS partners before returning to public service.

[zbdent]

22. Power is a much better orgasm

than just plain money . . .

[OneBlueSky]

23. access and influence . . . to help him (and GS) in the future . . . n/t

.

[LSK]

25. why would he continue to need a $30million a year job?

At that salary you are already rich as fuck. If it wasnt involving the Bushies, I would say the guy really wants to serve his country. IFFFFF he was not involving the Bush Crime Family.


Normally I would say your argument doesnt hold water.

[earth mom]

26. Exactly-what's in it for him?!

[windbreeze]

28. I think it goes deeper than the surface...

Our Federal Reserve is privately owned....has been since around 1913...Elite, rich, and manipulating corporate bankers such as Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, The Rothchilds, The Rockefellers own and control our whole banking system....so is it such a far stretch, with our burgeoning debt, the decision to quit reporting the M3, our economy on the way to tanking, with the dollar currently being devalued against the Yaun, the EURO and almost all other currency...to slip a man, such as the CEO of Goldman Sachs, into the Secretary of Treasury position????

Personally, I find it just a little unsettling...what do they know, or better yet, what are they up to, that they aren't telling us??? Kinda neat to have a man sitting in a spot where inside information about the truth of the state of our economy can be had, and handed to the ones who own our banking system...Seems to me that somewhere along the line this would be considered a serious conflict of interest....jmo....
windbreeze