File this under "moral bankruptcy"
The Obama Administration’s U.N. Human-Rights Fiasco [Nile Gardiner]
In what has to be one of the most weak-kneed foreign-policy decisions by the new administration (and the competition is pretty intense), the Obama administration has just announced that it will seek a seat on the widely discredited U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC), which was rightly boycotted by President Bush as an anti-American circus. The Council, which devotes much of its time to persecuting Israel, is the successor to the disastrous Commission on Human Rights, so awful that even Kofi Annan disowned it.
The HRC is frankly a basket case, even by the staggeringly low bar set by the U.N. It’s current membership includes some of the world’s most authoritarian regimes such as China, Cuba, Egypt, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. The current president is from Nigeria and the vice president from Azerbaijan, both countries with poor human-rights records.
Frankly it’s only a matter of time before the likes of Iran, Burma, and Zimbabwe work their way back into the U.N.’s human rights apparatus. No doubt tyrants across the world are salivating at the prospect of having the United States raked over the coals in Geneva.
It is hard to fathom the reasoning behind the Obama administration’s decision to join the Council and have the United States humiliated on the world stage. According to a clearly embarrassed State Department in a press release nowhere near the front page of their website: “The decision is in keeping with the Obama Administration's ‘new era of engagement’ with other nations to advance American security interests and meet the global challenges of the 21st century.”
This new approach apparently includes reaching out to the mullahs of Tehran who have actively backed the killing of American and British forces in Iraq, as well as imaginary “moderate” elements of the Taliban.
Personally, I prefer former U.N. ambassador John Bolton’s take on it all: “This is like getting on board the Titanic after its hit the iceberg. This is the theology of engagement at work. There is no concrete American interest served by this, and it legitimizes something that doesn't deserve legitimacy.”
— Nile Gardiner is the director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033102782.html?hpid=topnews
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Quote of the Day !
Richard Epstein, professor of law at the University of Chicago and NYU, on the responses of presidents Bush and Obama to the economic crisis. One characteristic, Epstein argues, unites both men: an astonishing ignorance of bankruptcy law.
When we attempt to bail out failing enterprises, Epstein insists, we take them away from bankruptcy judges, who are experts, and give them to a collection of congressional individuals who are charitably called clowns. When you bring commercial decisions to Congress they become politicized, and politicized decisions become destructive decisions.
When we attempt to bail out failing enterprises, Epstein insists, we take them away from bankruptcy judges, who are experts, and give them to a collection of congressional individuals who are charitably called clowns. When you bring commercial decisions to Congress they become politicized, and politicized decisions become destructive decisions.
I Told Ya Eric Holder was a TERRIBLE choice for Attorney General
Simply put, he is a hack.
Politicized Justice Department [Andy McCarthy]
The nomination of hard-left crusader Dawn Johnsen to lead the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the Department's top legal adviser, is stalled in the Senate. No matter. Attorney General Eric Holder has simply taken the job of politicizing DOJ to reflect the Democrats' partisan agenda into his own hands.
The Washington Post reports this morning that Holder has overruled OLC's objective, well-reasoned, constitutionally rooted opinion that the controversial D.C. voting-rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional. OLC's conclusion, if accepted by the attorney general, as is customary, would likely have doomed passage of the measure, which is strongly favored by President Obama and Democrats.
The bill would give the District of Columbia representation in Congress, specifically, one member of the House of Representatives — and, that accomplished, the way would be paved to add two Senate seats down the line. As the District is small and heavily Democrat, this would pull the Congress deeper into Democrat control. But the problem is that the Constitution clearly forbids the scheme. It expressly provides, in Article I, Section 2, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." (Emphasis added.) The District of Columbia is not a State. It is thus ineligible for representation in the House. (By the way, Art. I, Sec. 3, similarly provides that senators shall come “from each State, elected by the people thereof.”)
As NR's editors have observed (and as Matt Franck has recounted at NRO's Bench Memos — see this post, which cites to several of his others), the point of creating a non-state district as the seat of the national government was precisely to avoid one state's having too much influence over that government. Times may have changed — the national government is far more consequential now than it was then — but the Constitution hasn't.
It is, moreover, simply preposterous to argue, as supporters of the legislation do, that the Constitution's vesting in Congress of exclusive jurisdiction and rule-making authority over the District empowers it to award the District seats in a federal legislature expressly designed to represent citizens of the states. George Will aptly notes that if "Congress' legislative power trumps the Constitution, . . . Congress could establish religion, abridge freedom of speech and of the press and abolish the right of peaceful assembly in the District." To the contrary, "The grant of exclusive jurisdiction does not permit Congress to do anything that the rest of the Constitution forbids," NRO's editors wrote, "and the rest of the Constitution clearly forbids it to treat D.C. as a state."
None of this means it is a bad thing to want Americans who live in D.C. to have representation in Congress. There are ways of accomplishing that: amendment of the Constitution, the grant of statehood to D.C., or retrocession to Maryland (part of the District having already been ceded back to Virginia). Aside from being legal, those methods would not create the host of problems that would result from the current legislation (e.g., Why only a member of the House but not two in the senate? Why voting rights for D.C. but not Puerto Rico, American Somoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands?).
The job of the Justice Department, in any event, is to uphold the Constitution and explain the existing legal terrain so that policy-makers may pursue their preferences within the bounds of the law. That is what OLC does — and what it did here. Holder didn't like the answer because it didn't jibe with his partisan political preference. So in an unusual move, he asked for input from the solicitor general (who usually does not weigh in before there is a legal challenge to an enacted statute in court). The SG's office apparently told Holder it could plausibly defend the D.C. voting-rights legislation. That may be literally true (depending on your definition of "plausible") in the sense that lawyers are trained to argue both sides of any issue; but it doesn't mean the legislation should be defended — the Justice Department is supposed to take the most legally sound position, not any position preferred by the president that may pass the laugh-test.
In the Washington Post article, Ed Whelan is quoted describing Holder's decision as a "blatant abuse" of OLC's purpose. Ed couldn't be more right. Holder told the Senate he was strong enough to stand up to the president if the law called for it. But, as I argued prior to his confirmation, his craven performance as Clinton administration deputy AG showed Holder to be "a classic go-along-to-get-along careerist." Obama and the Democrats want this unconstitutional legislation enacted, and Holder is at their service — and if OLC stands in the way, he'll stampede OLC . . . just like he stampeded the Pardon Office and the U.S. attorney's offices when doing Clinton's bidding so required.
AG Holder’s Political Override of OLC [Ed Whelan]
Let me add to Andy McCarthy’s post about this remarkable lead story in today’s Washington Post, which reports that Attorney General Holder has rejected the legal opinion of the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that the so-called D.C. voting-rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional. According to the article, the new OLC — led by deputies (including very liberal legal academics) selected and appointed by the Obama administration — reached the same conclusion that OLC had reached under the Bush administration two years ago: The bill is unconstitutional. But dissatisfied with this answer, Holder turned to the Solicitor General’s office to ask it the very different question whether it “could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment.”
Holder wasn’t asking the SG’s office for its best view on whether or not the bill was constitutional (a role that belongs to OLC, not to the SG). He was asking it merely whether the position that the bill is constitutional is so beyond the pale, so beyond plausible defense, so legally frivolous, that the SG’s office, under its traditional commitment to defend any Act of Congress for which any reasonable defense can be offered, wouldn’t be able to defend it in court. And based on the virtually meaningless answer from the SG’s office that it could defend the legislation, Holder overrode the OLC opinion.
At his confirmation hearing, Holder promised not to politicize DOJ’s legal positions. As the Post’s article reports:
We don't change OLC opinions simply because a new administration takes over," he said. "The review that we would conduct would be a substantive one and reflect the best opinions of probably the best lawyers in the department as to where the law would be, what their opinions should be. It will not be a political process, it will be one based solely on our interpretation of the law.
From today’s Post story, it appears that on the D.C. voting-rights bill Holder has ignored the “best opinions of probably the best lawyers in the department as to where the law would be, what their opinions should be” and has imposed a “political process” designed to advance his, and the Obama administration’s, policy position in favor of giving D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives.
The Post article quotes me, correctly, as labeling Holder’s decision to override OLC’s advice a “blatant abuse” of OLC. That judgment of mine is based on the narrative above (which the reporter recounted to me). I recognize that OLC exercises authority delegated by the attorney general to give binding legal advice and that Holder, as attorney general, has the ultimate (and rarely exercised) authority to override OLC. But the Post story indicates that he has done so on improper grounds and through improper processes.
Re: AG Holder’s Political Override of OLC [Ed Whelan]
Some follow-up comments on Attorney General Eric Holder’s politicized override of OLC’s advice that the pending bill to give D.C. a seat in the House of Representatives is unconstitutional:
1. The conclusion that the new OLC — led by deputies (including very liberal legal academics) selected and appointed by the Obama administration — reached is not merely the same conclusion that OLC reached under the Bush administration two years ago. It’s been — or, rather, had been, until Holder’s override — the Department of Justice’s consistent position dating back at least as far as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1963 or so.
2. Colleagues who served with me in DOJ under Attorney General Ashcroft, who has been wrongly and viciously demonized by the Left, have two reactions: (a) If Ashcroft had ever done anything remotely similar, it would have generated a full-blown scandal (b) Ashcroft would never have done anything remotely similar.
3. In office for less than two months, Eric Holder has already proven to be the craven political hack that Andy McCarthy warned about. It’s only going to get worse.
4. There are grave concerns over whether Dawn Johnsen, the nominee to head OLC, will politicize OLC’s legal advice. Holder’s shenanigans ought to reinforce the importance of those concerns.
5. Solicitor General Elena Kagan was not yet in her position when Holder used the SG’s office to pull a cheap end-run around OLC. But now that she is in office, it’s her institutional responsibility not to let Holder hide behind her office’s virtually meaningless advice. Let’s see if she lives up to her responsibility.
6. The Left has vehemently attacked DOJ under the Bush administration for supposedly “politicizing” advice on national-security matters. Let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that the attack is valid (rather than assume that the positions taken by the folks in Bush’s DOJ, whatever dispute there may be over the merits of some of those positions, were adopted by those folks in good faith as their best reading of the law). At least the Bush DOJ was acting to promote the paramount interest of national security. By contrast, AG Holder is corrupting DOJ’s legal processes for the petty partisan purpose of giving D.C. a vote in the House. (Matt Franck reminds us of another attorney general whose corruption elicited Thomas More’s famous line in A Man for All Seasons: “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world . . . but for Wales?”)
Please don’t tell me that fundamental issues of justice are at stake. For starters, there are lawful means, as Andy has outlined, of remedying the supposed injustice. Beyond that, there are offsetting advantages that D.C. residents already enjoy, including three electoral votes and access to the in-state tuition rate (or $10,000 less than the ordinary out-of-state rate) at the more than 2,500 public colleges and universities in the 50 states. And D.C. residents who don’t like the trade-off are free to relocate.
Politicized Justice Department [Andy McCarthy]
The nomination of hard-left crusader Dawn Johnsen to lead the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the Department's top legal adviser, is stalled in the Senate. No matter. Attorney General Eric Holder has simply taken the job of politicizing DOJ to reflect the Democrats' partisan agenda into his own hands.
The Washington Post reports this morning that Holder has overruled OLC's objective, well-reasoned, constitutionally rooted opinion that the controversial D.C. voting-rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional. OLC's conclusion, if accepted by the attorney general, as is customary, would likely have doomed passage of the measure, which is strongly favored by President Obama and Democrats.
The bill would give the District of Columbia representation in Congress, specifically, one member of the House of Representatives — and, that accomplished, the way would be paved to add two Senate seats down the line. As the District is small and heavily Democrat, this would pull the Congress deeper into Democrat control. But the problem is that the Constitution clearly forbids the scheme. It expressly provides, in Article I, Section 2, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." (Emphasis added.) The District of Columbia is not a State. It is thus ineligible for representation in the House. (By the way, Art. I, Sec. 3, similarly provides that senators shall come “from each State, elected by the people thereof.”)
As NR's editors have observed (and as Matt Franck has recounted at NRO's Bench Memos — see this post, which cites to several of his others), the point of creating a non-state district as the seat of the national government was precisely to avoid one state's having too much influence over that government. Times may have changed — the national government is far more consequential now than it was then — but the Constitution hasn't.
It is, moreover, simply preposterous to argue, as supporters of the legislation do, that the Constitution's vesting in Congress of exclusive jurisdiction and rule-making authority over the District empowers it to award the District seats in a federal legislature expressly designed to represent citizens of the states. George Will aptly notes that if "Congress' legislative power trumps the Constitution, . . . Congress could establish religion, abridge freedom of speech and of the press and abolish the right of peaceful assembly in the District." To the contrary, "The grant of exclusive jurisdiction does not permit Congress to do anything that the rest of the Constitution forbids," NRO's editors wrote, "and the rest of the Constitution clearly forbids it to treat D.C. as a state."
None of this means it is a bad thing to want Americans who live in D.C. to have representation in Congress. There are ways of accomplishing that: amendment of the Constitution, the grant of statehood to D.C., or retrocession to Maryland (part of the District having already been ceded back to Virginia). Aside from being legal, those methods would not create the host of problems that would result from the current legislation (e.g., Why only a member of the House but not two in the senate? Why voting rights for D.C. but not Puerto Rico, American Somoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands?).
The job of the Justice Department, in any event, is to uphold the Constitution and explain the existing legal terrain so that policy-makers may pursue their preferences within the bounds of the law. That is what OLC does — and what it did here. Holder didn't like the answer because it didn't jibe with his partisan political preference. So in an unusual move, he asked for input from the solicitor general (who usually does not weigh in before there is a legal challenge to an enacted statute in court). The SG's office apparently told Holder it could plausibly defend the D.C. voting-rights legislation. That may be literally true (depending on your definition of "plausible") in the sense that lawyers are trained to argue both sides of any issue; but it doesn't mean the legislation should be defended — the Justice Department is supposed to take the most legally sound position, not any position preferred by the president that may pass the laugh-test.
In the Washington Post article, Ed Whelan is quoted describing Holder's decision as a "blatant abuse" of OLC's purpose. Ed couldn't be more right. Holder told the Senate he was strong enough to stand up to the president if the law called for it. But, as I argued prior to his confirmation, his craven performance as Clinton administration deputy AG showed Holder to be "a classic go-along-to-get-along careerist." Obama and the Democrats want this unconstitutional legislation enacted, and Holder is at their service — and if OLC stands in the way, he'll stampede OLC . . . just like he stampeded the Pardon Office and the U.S. attorney's offices when doing Clinton's bidding so required.
AG Holder’s Political Override of OLC [Ed Whelan]
Let me add to Andy McCarthy’s post about this remarkable lead story in today’s Washington Post, which reports that Attorney General Holder has rejected the legal opinion of the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that the so-called D.C. voting-rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional. According to the article, the new OLC — led by deputies (including very liberal legal academics) selected and appointed by the Obama administration — reached the same conclusion that OLC had reached under the Bush administration two years ago: The bill is unconstitutional. But dissatisfied with this answer, Holder turned to the Solicitor General’s office to ask it the very different question whether it “could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment.”
Holder wasn’t asking the SG’s office for its best view on whether or not the bill was constitutional (a role that belongs to OLC, not to the SG). He was asking it merely whether the position that the bill is constitutional is so beyond the pale, so beyond plausible defense, so legally frivolous, that the SG’s office, under its traditional commitment to defend any Act of Congress for which any reasonable defense can be offered, wouldn’t be able to defend it in court. And based on the virtually meaningless answer from the SG’s office that it could defend the legislation, Holder overrode the OLC opinion.
At his confirmation hearing, Holder promised not to politicize DOJ’s legal positions. As the Post’s article reports:
We don't change OLC opinions simply because a new administration takes over," he said. "The review that we would conduct would be a substantive one and reflect the best opinions of probably the best lawyers in the department as to where the law would be, what their opinions should be. It will not be a political process, it will be one based solely on our interpretation of the law.
From today’s Post story, it appears that on the D.C. voting-rights bill Holder has ignored the “best opinions of probably the best lawyers in the department as to where the law would be, what their opinions should be” and has imposed a “political process” designed to advance his, and the Obama administration’s, policy position in favor of giving D.C. a vote in the House of Representatives.
The Post article quotes me, correctly, as labeling Holder’s decision to override OLC’s advice a “blatant abuse” of OLC. That judgment of mine is based on the narrative above (which the reporter recounted to me). I recognize that OLC exercises authority delegated by the attorney general to give binding legal advice and that Holder, as attorney general, has the ultimate (and rarely exercised) authority to override OLC. But the Post story indicates that he has done so on improper grounds and through improper processes.
Re: AG Holder’s Political Override of OLC [Ed Whelan]
Some follow-up comments on Attorney General Eric Holder’s politicized override of OLC’s advice that the pending bill to give D.C. a seat in the House of Representatives is unconstitutional:
1. The conclusion that the new OLC — led by deputies (including very liberal legal academics) selected and appointed by the Obama administration — reached is not merely the same conclusion that OLC reached under the Bush administration two years ago. It’s been — or, rather, had been, until Holder’s override — the Department of Justice’s consistent position dating back at least as far as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1963 or so.
2. Colleagues who served with me in DOJ under Attorney General Ashcroft, who has been wrongly and viciously demonized by the Left, have two reactions: (a) If Ashcroft had ever done anything remotely similar, it would have generated a full-blown scandal (b) Ashcroft would never have done anything remotely similar.
3. In office for less than two months, Eric Holder has already proven to be the craven political hack that Andy McCarthy warned about. It’s only going to get worse.
4. There are grave concerns over whether Dawn Johnsen, the nominee to head OLC, will politicize OLC’s legal advice. Holder’s shenanigans ought to reinforce the importance of those concerns.
5. Solicitor General Elena Kagan was not yet in her position when Holder used the SG’s office to pull a cheap end-run around OLC. But now that she is in office, it’s her institutional responsibility not to let Holder hide behind her office’s virtually meaningless advice. Let’s see if she lives up to her responsibility.
6. The Left has vehemently attacked DOJ under the Bush administration for supposedly “politicizing” advice on national-security matters. Let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that the attack is valid (rather than assume that the positions taken by the folks in Bush’s DOJ, whatever dispute there may be over the merits of some of those positions, were adopted by those folks in good faith as their best reading of the law). At least the Bush DOJ was acting to promote the paramount interest of national security. By contrast, AG Holder is corrupting DOJ’s legal processes for the petty partisan purpose of giving D.C. a vote in the House. (Matt Franck reminds us of another attorney general whose corruption elicited Thomas More’s famous line in A Man for All Seasons: “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world . . . but for Wales?”)
Please don’t tell me that fundamental issues of justice are at stake. For starters, there are lawful means, as Andy has outlined, of remedying the supposed injustice. Beyond that, there are offsetting advantages that D.C. residents already enjoy, including three electoral votes and access to the in-state tuition rate (or $10,000 less than the ordinary out-of-state rate) at the more than 2,500 public colleges and universities in the 50 states. And D.C. residents who don’t like the trade-off are free to relocate.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
My Kinda Guy -- one with Common Sense
http://technologyonsiteservices.blogspot.com/2009/03/unedited-version-of-public-apology-and.html
WSJ Ad [Jack Fowler]
He’s just not gonna take it anymore. “He” — a guy whose “name is regretfully withheld to avoid the wrath of small minds and big government” — ran an ad on page 4 of today’s Journal, “A Public Apology and Plea to all AIG Associates (Including Bonus Recipients).” The unedited version of the ad appears here. If you think Congress has a bit too many “polished, practiced hypocrites” best known for their “utter hypocrisy, heavy handedness, and pure idiocy,” well, then you’re going to like reading this:
Thoughtful Americans – people of common sense and good will – know exactly what is going on today in American Politics.
Whether or not the proposed absurd, onerous tax penalties are eventually signed into law, we share the outrage you must feel for the utter hypocrisy, heavy handedness, and pure idiocy of our elected officials. There is nothing new about the concept of politicians identifying scapegoats to divert attention from their own ineptness, but they have now taken it to a preposterous level.
These polished, practiced hypocrites, aided by the media, are staging a vicious charade aimed at stirring anger amongst a naturally vindictive, vocal segment of our population – either oblivious or non-caring of the impact of this furor on you and your families.
• We have a permanently unpopular and irreparably out-of-touch Congress – both Republicans and Democrats – shamelessly pandering to an uninformed electorate – wasting taxpayer dollars treating private citizen CEOs like convicted felons – investigating everyone but themselves. It was they who passed legislation promoting sub prime mortgages and the latest ‘stimulus’ package which provided for the bonuses.
• We have a populist President – in his own words – “channeling our anger in a constructive way”. His idea of “constructive” demeans his role as the leader of all Americans – specifically: his unnecessary divisive remarks that treat all people of wealth as greedy; his broadside attacks on excessive executive compensation as if all CEOs in Corporate America are overpaid; his sweeping, counterproductive vilification of Wall Street’s “excessive greed” – combined with his terribly misguided advice to young folks not to pursue careers there; and, his constant, classless whining about the mess he inherited and his predecessor’s mistakes. He says he is angry about all of the above, yet sees no problem in incurring the wrath of sensible Americans by running up trillion dollar deficits.
• And, no surprise, the New York and Connecticut State Attorney Generals are now piling on – issuing subpoenas.
• We are appalled that, before our very eyes, they are systematically demeaning and dismantling America’s financial services sector – a proven facilitator of wealth and job creation. This national asset, with all of its flaws, is irrefutably the very best in the world.
Elections have consequences – but caring Americans, regardless of their ideology, must not remain silent on the sidelines and allow this lunacy to continue.
• The bonuses in question were voted by Congress and signed into law by the sitting President.
• Retroactive use of the tax code to punish any private citizen is an absurd, vindictive, small minded act by political hacks!!
• The money legally belongs to the bonus recipients regardless of their role in AIG. What’s done is done – let’s all move on to address real issues: the deficit, jobs, and economic prosperity!
For the sake of your own dignity and out of respect for your Country, do not succumb to this insanity which, if allowed to prevail, will most certainly propagate the lawless power of our Federal government.
A special message to bonus recipients: If after reading this, you are still overcome with guilt – please don’t give the money back to proven, profligate spenders – donate it to a useful charitable cause.
By the way, the ad writer/funder doesn’t seem to be an AIG refugee but “a small business owner who started my career 52 years ago with nothing but a $500 used car loan and a pop up toaster and proudly, as part of Corporate America, created jobs around the world and wealth for my family.”
WSJ Ad [Jack Fowler]
He’s just not gonna take it anymore. “He” — a guy whose “name is regretfully withheld to avoid the wrath of small minds and big government” — ran an ad on page 4 of today’s Journal, “A Public Apology and Plea to all AIG Associates (Including Bonus Recipients).” The unedited version of the ad appears here. If you think Congress has a bit too many “polished, practiced hypocrites” best known for their “utter hypocrisy, heavy handedness, and pure idiocy,” well, then you’re going to like reading this:
Thoughtful Americans – people of common sense and good will – know exactly what is going on today in American Politics.
Whether or not the proposed absurd, onerous tax penalties are eventually signed into law, we share the outrage you must feel for the utter hypocrisy, heavy handedness, and pure idiocy of our elected officials. There is nothing new about the concept of politicians identifying scapegoats to divert attention from their own ineptness, but they have now taken it to a preposterous level.
These polished, practiced hypocrites, aided by the media, are staging a vicious charade aimed at stirring anger amongst a naturally vindictive, vocal segment of our population – either oblivious or non-caring of the impact of this furor on you and your families.
• We have a permanently unpopular and irreparably out-of-touch Congress – both Republicans and Democrats – shamelessly pandering to an uninformed electorate – wasting taxpayer dollars treating private citizen CEOs like convicted felons – investigating everyone but themselves. It was they who passed legislation promoting sub prime mortgages and the latest ‘stimulus’ package which provided for the bonuses.
• We have a populist President – in his own words – “channeling our anger in a constructive way”. His idea of “constructive” demeans his role as the leader of all Americans – specifically: his unnecessary divisive remarks that treat all people of wealth as greedy; his broadside attacks on excessive executive compensation as if all CEOs in Corporate America are overpaid; his sweeping, counterproductive vilification of Wall Street’s “excessive greed” – combined with his terribly misguided advice to young folks not to pursue careers there; and, his constant, classless whining about the mess he inherited and his predecessor’s mistakes. He says he is angry about all of the above, yet sees no problem in incurring the wrath of sensible Americans by running up trillion dollar deficits.
• And, no surprise, the New York and Connecticut State Attorney Generals are now piling on – issuing subpoenas.
• We are appalled that, before our very eyes, they are systematically demeaning and dismantling America’s financial services sector – a proven facilitator of wealth and job creation. This national asset, with all of its flaws, is irrefutably the very best in the world.
Elections have consequences – but caring Americans, regardless of their ideology, must not remain silent on the sidelines and allow this lunacy to continue.
• The bonuses in question were voted by Congress and signed into law by the sitting President.
• Retroactive use of the tax code to punish any private citizen is an absurd, vindictive, small minded act by political hacks!!
• The money legally belongs to the bonus recipients regardless of their role in AIG. What’s done is done – let’s all move on to address real issues: the deficit, jobs, and economic prosperity!
For the sake of your own dignity and out of respect for your Country, do not succumb to this insanity which, if allowed to prevail, will most certainly propagate the lawless power of our Federal government.
A special message to bonus recipients: If after reading this, you are still overcome with guilt – please don’t give the money back to proven, profligate spenders – donate it to a useful charitable cause.
By the way, the ad writer/funder doesn’t seem to be an AIG refugee but “a small business owner who started my career 52 years ago with nothing but a $500 used car loan and a pop up toaster and proudly, as part of Corporate America, created jobs around the world and wealth for my family.”
Monday, March 30, 2009
Which brings us to Christopher Dodd - D - CT
Can we get rid of this crook already ?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/30/aig-chiefs-pressed-to-donate-to-dodd/print/
Chris Dodd and AIG [David Freddoso]
This morning's Washington Times has the goods, exclusively, on Senator Dodd and AIG.
The message in the Nov. 17, 2006, e-mail from Joseph Cassano, AIG Financial Products chief executive, was unmistakable: Mr. Dodd was "next in line" to be chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees the insurance industry, and he would "have the opportunity to set the committee's agenda on issues critical to the financial services industry...Given his seniority in the Senate, he will also play a key role in the Democratic Majority's leadership..."
Mr. Dodd's campaign quickly hit pay dirt, collecting more than $160,000 from employees and their spouses at the AIG Financial Products division (AIG-FP) in Wilton, Conn., in the days before he took over as the committee chairman in January 2007...Each of the seven AIG-FP executives to whom the Cassano e-mail was sent made two $2,100 contributions to the Dodd campaign - one for the primary and another for the general election campaign. The records also show that five of their wives also contributed $4,200 each to the Dodd campaign. ...
"The concern and the question is whether AIG was purchasing kid-glove treatment from their home state senator - from the senator chairing the committee charged with overseeing their industry," Ms. [Sheila] Krumholz said.
This story is a very big deal. Whether they "purchased" special treatment or not, AIG is definitely getting special treatment now, and they got it after paying out.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/30/aig-chiefs-pressed-to-donate-to-dodd/print/
Chris Dodd and AIG [David Freddoso]
This morning's Washington Times has the goods, exclusively, on Senator Dodd and AIG.
The message in the Nov. 17, 2006, e-mail from Joseph Cassano, AIG Financial Products chief executive, was unmistakable: Mr. Dodd was "next in line" to be chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees the insurance industry, and he would "have the opportunity to set the committee's agenda on issues critical to the financial services industry...Given his seniority in the Senate, he will also play a key role in the Democratic Majority's leadership..."
Mr. Dodd's campaign quickly hit pay dirt, collecting more than $160,000 from employees and their spouses at the AIG Financial Products division (AIG-FP) in Wilton, Conn., in the days before he took over as the committee chairman in January 2007...Each of the seven AIG-FP executives to whom the Cassano e-mail was sent made two $2,100 contributions to the Dodd campaign - one for the primary and another for the general election campaign. The records also show that five of their wives also contributed $4,200 each to the Dodd campaign. ...
"The concern and the question is whether AIG was purchasing kid-glove treatment from their home state senator - from the senator chairing the committee charged with overseeing their industry," Ms. [Sheila] Krumholz said.
This story is a very big deal. Whether they "purchased" special treatment or not, AIG is definitely getting special treatment now, and they got it after paying out.
John Murtha - D - PA
How many crooked Dem Congressmen and Senators can we tolerate at one time ?
Murtha, Murtha, Murtha [Mark Hemingway]
Two big stories out today relating to Rep. John Murtha. The NYT gets the scoop on the culture of corruption at PMA Group, the lobbying firm with extensive ties to Murtha, raided by the FBI last November:
That impresario act — pulling bottles from the private wine locker labeled “Mags” to entertain lawmakers at the clubby Capital Grille steakhouse, sending gift baskets or wine to lawmakers and their aides, or leasing each of his lobbyists a Lexus — helped Mr. Magliocchetti, a protégé of the powerful Representative John P. Murtha, build his lobbying firm into one of the 10 biggest in Washington.
Now, however, Mr. Magliocchetti’s generosity is coming to an abrupt halt: his firm, the PMA Group, is closing its doors next week, after reports that federal prosecutors had recently raided his office and his home.
And many on Capitol Hill, recalling the scandal that mushroomed around the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, are wondering who else will be ensnared in the investigation as prosecutors pore over the financial records and computer files of one of K Street’s most influential lobbyists, known both for the billions of dollars in earmarks he obtained for his clients and for his open hand toward those he sought to influence.
Shades of Jack Abramoff? That can't be good. Meanwhile, Politico has a good story about how the Democratic leadership may not be able to hold off Rep. Jeff Flake's call for an investigation into Murtha and PMA much longer:
A trickle of defections has Democratic House leaders wondering how long they can hold off calls for an investigation into the PMA Group and its ties to Pennsylvania Rep. John P. Murtha.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) got only 17 Democratic votes when he introduced a privileged resolution in February calling for an ethics investigation into “the relationship between earmark requests already made by members and the source and timing of past campaign contributions.”
But Flake has kept trying — the sixth version of his resolution comes up for a vote this week — and he’s picked up support from eight Democrats who voted against his initial resolution.
And that has Democratic leaders worried.
Murtha, Murtha, Murtha [Mark Hemingway]
Two big stories out today relating to Rep. John Murtha. The NYT gets the scoop on the culture of corruption at PMA Group, the lobbying firm with extensive ties to Murtha, raided by the FBI last November:
That impresario act — pulling bottles from the private wine locker labeled “Mags” to entertain lawmakers at the clubby Capital Grille steakhouse, sending gift baskets or wine to lawmakers and their aides, or leasing each of his lobbyists a Lexus — helped Mr. Magliocchetti, a protégé of the powerful Representative John P. Murtha, build his lobbying firm into one of the 10 biggest in Washington.
Now, however, Mr. Magliocchetti’s generosity is coming to an abrupt halt: his firm, the PMA Group, is closing its doors next week, after reports that federal prosecutors had recently raided his office and his home.
And many on Capitol Hill, recalling the scandal that mushroomed around the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, are wondering who else will be ensnared in the investigation as prosecutors pore over the financial records and computer files of one of K Street’s most influential lobbyists, known both for the billions of dollars in earmarks he obtained for his clients and for his open hand toward those he sought to influence.
Shades of Jack Abramoff? That can't be good. Meanwhile, Politico has a good story about how the Democratic leadership may not be able to hold off Rep. Jeff Flake's call for an investigation into Murtha and PMA much longer:
A trickle of defections has Democratic House leaders wondering how long they can hold off calls for an investigation into the PMA Group and its ties to Pennsylvania Rep. John P. Murtha.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) got only 17 Democratic votes when he introduced a privileged resolution in February calling for an ethics investigation into “the relationship between earmark requests already made by members and the source and timing of past campaign contributions.”
But Flake has kept trying — the sixth version of his resolution comes up for a vote this week — and he’s picked up support from eight Democrats who voted against his initial resolution.
And that has Democratic leaders worried.
Cult of Personality, part II
First-person Socialism [Victor Davis Hanson]
I think our president needs to invest more in the use of the third-person "government," since his speeches more and more center on the narcissistic "I" and "me." Even the car-takeover speech was "I-ed" to death. E.g.
My Auto Task Force
And so today, I am announcing that my administration will...
In this context, my administration will offer General Motors adequate working capital over the next 60 days. During this time, my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan.
I am committed to doing all I can to see if a deal can be struck...
Now, I know that when people even hear the word "bankruptcy" it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean. What I am talking about is..
What I am not talking about is a process where a company is broken up, sold off, and no longer exists. And what I am not talking about is having a company stuck in court for years...
It is my hope that the steps I am announcing...
let me say it as plainly as I can ...
I'm directing my team to take several steps.
I want to work with Congress to identify parts of the Recovery Act..
I am designating a new Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers...
And on and on . . .
I think our president needs to invest more in the use of the third-person "government," since his speeches more and more center on the narcissistic "I" and "me." Even the car-takeover speech was "I-ed" to death. E.g.
My Auto Task Force
And so today, I am announcing that my administration will...
In this context, my administration will offer General Motors adequate working capital over the next 60 days. During this time, my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan.
I am committed to doing all I can to see if a deal can be struck...
Now, I know that when people even hear the word "bankruptcy" it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean. What I am talking about is..
What I am not talking about is a process where a company is broken up, sold off, and no longer exists. And what I am not talking about is having a company stuck in court for years...
It is my hope that the steps I am announcing...
let me say it as plainly as I can ...
I'm directing my team to take several steps.
I want to work with Congress to identify parts of the Recovery Act..
I am designating a new Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers...
And on and on . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
