No.

The transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Streeet will continue unabated.

President Rove would have it no other way.

Bolten is a Goldman alum. A connection to the Chief of Staff could be more important to frame the public discourse than one to the President. I'd have to think that this is what Paulsen banks on

Also, the cynical in me says that the "business as usual" policies: tax cuts for the wealthy, changing the tax code to favor capitol over income, etc... all favor Goldman Sachs and that crowd.

True, the long term consequences may be, umm, problematic, but why worry tomorrow when you can make money today? Wall Street is not only notoriously nearsighted, but firms like Goldman benefit greatly from Myopia on the part of others.

Comments like the one from rust belt and nicholas show a lack of awareness that mant (most?) of the Goldman and related Wall Street "crowd", are, oddly enough, liberals. At the very least, they are not conservatives. See the Clinton administration, lead of course by Mr. Goldman, Robert Rubin. And of course Mr. Soros...and...

It's not implausible that Paulson will get a decent amount input into the policy-making process. It seems the conventional wisdom that Bush will only work with close personal contacts and loyal friends has proven false of late (very late), given the new appointees Bolten, Snow, and now Paulson.

I apologize for shameless self-promotion, but care to check out my blog?

http://independent-thinkers.blogspot.com/

Two questions: what does a "seat at the table" as to policymaking mean in the Bush administration at this stage?

And what do Bush's low-30s approval ratings have to do with this choice for Treasury?

Bush has never wanted a strong Treasury Secretary; his tax policy has always been a product of his political adviser's strategy of keeping the GOP fundraising base happy. I freely admit to being no expert on the Goldman Sachs world, but what I've read to date does not suggest that this Paulson fellow will let himself be pushed around the way his two predecessors were. His record does not suggest he would have accepted the post without some assurances as to his role in making tax and fiscal policy. Suppose that record gives a true sense of the kind of Treasury Secretary Paulson would want to be -- what assurances did he get?

I don't mean to suggest anything dramatic. Paulson has spoken up in favor of Bush's tax cuts in the past. But if those are left in place and administration policy on spending is left unchanged there isn't much for a really strong Treasury Secretary to do, except maybe lift weights and try to get stronger.

Clearly the post-Katrina swoon in popularity has caused some concern in the White House. The most recent appointments have favored the competent wing of the republican party instead of the cronies, fundraisers and loyalists that have typified the first 5.5 years. Though it is amusing that some find this "trend" a confirmation of whatever positive feelings they have invested in the Administration. It'll take 50 more Paulsons and Boltens to undo the damage of a Brownie, a Rummy and a Wolfie.

"Comments like the one from rust belt and nicholas show a lack of awareness that mant (most?) of the Goldman and related Wall Street "crowd", are, oddly enough, liberals. At the very least, they are not conservatives. See the Clinton administration, lead of course by Mr. Goldman, Robert Rubin. And of course Mr. Soros...and..."

They may be liberals, or at least social liberlals, but they also make certain their pantry is filled first and most, and then they redistribute other peoples money.

On another note, was Goldman one of the firms to settle with Elliot Spitzer on civil fruad charges? I can't find the file right at the moment.

Comments like the one from rust belt and nicholas show a lack of awareness that mant (most?) of the Goldman and related Wall Street "crowd", are, oddly enough, liberals. At the very least, they are not conservatives

Its more complicated than that. Most are social liberals. Yet on economic issues, they can be fairly conservative at times. if you look for the contributions on fundrace.org from GOldman's address, you'll find them all over the place.

I've no idea what Paulson's other beliefs are, but I supect he'll be the Michael Bloomberg style of NY Republican.

I'm no fan of Bush. but this seems like a solid appointment to me -- now we have to see whether Paulson actually has any real power. In this administration, Treasury (historically one of the big 4 positions) has become downgraded to a 2nd rank position

Zathras is right - unless deficits are controlled, there is much less what the new secretary do. I think there is a serious possibility that Paulson will turn out to be less effective given the fundamental global imbalances. Bush is done with Tax cut as far as his Presidency is considered. So there is no way to have higher collection except apart from the rising economic tide and one wonders how long it can continue. Republican Congress cannot reduce expenses. So what can Paulson do? Convince Chinese to devalue further their currency? Will that solve America's economic problems?

The truth is unless there is policy backing by the President and Congress, the secretary can do less. Bush is done with all the damage he wanted to do with this economy. So bringing anyone without needing to repair his policies does not give any positive outlook.

Zathras is right - unless deficits are controlled, there is much less what the new secretary do. I think there is a serious possibility that Paulson will turn out to be less effective given the fundamental global imbalances. Bush is done with Tax cut as far as his Presidency is considered. So there is no way to have higher collection except apart from the rising economic tide and one wonders how long it can continue. Republican Congress cannot reduce expenses. So what can Paulson do? Convince Chinese to devalue further their currency? Will that solve America's economic problems?

The truth is unless there is policy backing by the President and Congress, the secretary can do less. Bush is done with all the damage he wanted to do with this economy. So bringing anyone without needing to repair his policies does not give any positive outlook.

Nicholas Weaver: "True, the long term consequences may be, umm, problematic, but why worry tomorrow when you can make money today?"

I don't think Wall Street is exactly in favor of massive Federal Budget Deficits, as you imply. You are confusing Wall Street with Congress.

"Wall Street is not only notoriously nearsighted, but firms like Goldman benefit greatly from Myopia on the part of others."

Again, you are confusing Wall Street with Congress. Of course, you are much less nearsighted than a dynamic set of financial institutions. If only someone with your insight had more power ... we'd all be better off.

Umesh Patil: "Bush is done with all the damage he wanted to do with this economy."

Yep, the economy is pretty damaged:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 5.3 percent in the first quarter of 2006, according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Also, the unemployment rate is at 4.7%

However, I don't blame you for thinking the economy is in bad shape. Most major media outlets suggest it almost daily.

Ah. Jake, you might want to consult an actual economist about that.

Better yet, consult three of them.

If I asked 3 economists, I'd probably get three different answers. I assume that you are one of those "actual" economists that doesn't think the economy is heading for greener pastures. I don't necessarily think it is either. I just think its very hasty to suggest the economy is damaged.

I have read actual economists concerning the economy (as, I assume, have many of the other readers of this blog) and obviously there are optimists and pessimists. But, I don't think anyone can argue that the recent performance of the "Bush Economy" has been something better than "damaged".

Maybe what you meant to say is I should ask whatever economist(s) YOU have been reading/talking to. If this is the case, in all sincerety I would appreciate any suggestions.

Second sentence of second paragraph should read: The recent performance of the "Bush Economy" has been something better than "damaged".

Marc Chandler is one leading currency expert I follow on 'TheStreet.com' and he has following to say about the new appointment. I think what he is saying is lot sensible:

"That said, there are several reasons to think that Paulson may not have the same good fortune this his Wall Street predecessors enjoyed at the Treasury. First, the Bush administration suffers from a terribly low public-approval rating. Many surveys suggest that as low as the president's support is, Vice President Cheney's is even lower. This may limit Paulson's freedom, even if he has a strong mandate from the president. This raises the second potential constraint: Economic policy in this administration is orchestrated from the White House, not the Treasury.

Although Bush indicated that Paulson will be his primary economic advisor, it isn't immediately clear what the reality will be. Surely Bush intimated the same thing to his first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill. Where is there space for Paulson's expertise to shine, given that next year's budget is done and that the administration's stance on international issues has been staked out in a G7/IMF statement and in the recent report on the currency market, not to mention Bush's tax-cut extensions?

Even though Paulson will be the first Treasury secretary drawn from Wall Street to serve under Bush, he is very much like other Bush appointees in several respects. First, he is a loyal Republican. He served in Nixon's government and has been a significant financial contributor. Second, and arguably more telling, Paulson has a close contact in the White House in the form of Joshua Bolten, a former colleague at Goldman Sachs. Reports suggest Bolten has been pushing for his friend since he became chief of staff earlier this spring. When this occurs in other countries, we accuse them of crony capitalism; when it happens in the U.S., it is called networking.

Much has been made of Paulson's experience with China, but it is simply naïve to think the reason that China hasn't capitulated to numerous (and sometimes conflicting) U.S. demands is that the right person hasn't asked in the right way. China's position when it comes to trade, currency, North Korea, Iran and Taiwan and its arms buildup is a function of how the ruling elite perceive their national self-interest. The Bush administration and investors who expect a significant breakthrough with China will likely be sorely disappointed. China will move at its own speed.

Similarly, the U.S. stance on the dollar will probably not change. Paulson is likely to follow the policy of saying that a strong dollar is in the national interest. But, given the lack of political will (in the U.S. and elsewhere) to make the structural reforms that are understood to be necessary, the currency market will have to bear the burden of the adjustment process. Strong dollar in word, benign neglect in deed."

I was reading online, and the Capital Research Center did a newsletter about Hank Paulson was the Chairman of The Nature Conservancy.

You can read the entire newsletter here:

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.asp?ID=516

The truth is unless there is policy backing by the President and Congress, the secretary can do less. Bush is done with all the damage he wanted to do with this economy. So bringing anyone without needing to repair his policies does not give any positive outlook.
http://www.sanyodenki.net