Pro-copyright group takes SOPA to task
by Declan McCullagh
December 21, 2011
The Heritage Foundation, probably the nation's most influential conservative advocacy group, has long been a reliable ally of large copyright holders. But not when it comes to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act.
The venerable think tank, which enjoys close ties with the Republican Party and inspired President Reagan's missile defense program and the GOP's welfare reform effort, warned today that SOPA raises important security and free speech concerns.
"The concern with SOPA is that it enforces private property rights at the expense of other values, such as innovation on the Internet, security of the Internet, and freedom of communication," James Gattuso, Heritage's senior research fellow in regulatory policy, told CNET this evening. While SOPA addresses a "very real problem," he says, it's not necessarily the right solution.
Unlike some Washington advocacy groups that are predictably anti-copyright, Heritage has historically taken the opposite position. It called the Motion Picture Association of America's decision to sue peer-to-peer pirates a "wise choice," and suggested that disrupting P2P networks to curb piracy, an idea that some politicians actually proposed, is a step "in the right direction."
Heritage's criticism is important because SOPA author Lamar Smith of Texas, who has become Hollywood's favorite Republican, is almost certain to win committee approval in early 2012. Then the bill's fate will rest in the hands of the Republican House leadership--which could chose to delay a floor vote indefinitely if the GOP appears divided...
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Republicans block Obama's nominee to head consumer watchdog agenc
Senate Republicans block Obama's nominee to head consumer watchdog agency
Washington Post
Dec. 8, 2011
In a long-awaited vote Thursday morning, Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to lead his signature consumer watchdog agency, a move that prevents it from exercising many of its broad new powers.
Republicans relied on a procedural vote to keep the Senate from even considering former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray for the top job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Though GOP lawmakers have praised Cordray’s qualifications for the job -- he currently serves as the CFPB’s director of enforcement -- they have pledged to prevent any candidate from being confirmed unless significant structural change are made to the bureau.
Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/senate-republicans-block-cordray-as-obama-consumer-watchdog-nominee/2011/12/08/gIQA6j9BfO_blog.html
Washington Post
Dec. 8, 2011
In a long-awaited vote Thursday morning, Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to lead his signature consumer watchdog agency, a move that prevents it from exercising many of its broad new powers.
Republicans relied on a procedural vote to keep the Senate from even considering former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray for the top job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Though GOP lawmakers have praised Cordray’s qualifications for the job -- he currently serves as the CFPB’s director of enforcement -- they have pledged to prevent any candidate from being confirmed unless significant structural change are made to the bureau.
Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/senate-republicans-block-cordray-as-obama-consumer-watchdog-nominee/2011/12/08/gIQA6j9BfO_blog.html
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Citigroup and the people who brought the financial meltdown
Citigroup to Pay Millions to Close Fraud Complaint
By EDWARD WYATT
New York Times
October 19, 2011
WASHINGTON — As the housing market began its collapse, Wall Street firms and sophisticated investors searched for ways to profit. Some of them found an easy method: Stuff a portfolio with risky mortgage-related investments, sell it to unsuspecting customers and bet against it.
Citigroup on Wednesday agreed to pay $285 million to settle a civil complaint by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it had defrauded investors who bought just such a deal. The transaction involved a $1 billion portfolio of mortgage-related investments, many of which were handpicked for the portfolio by Citigroup without telling investors of its role or that it had made bets that the investments would fall in value.
In the four years since the housing market began its steady descent, securities regulators have settled only two cases related to the financial crisis for a larger sum of money. This is also the third case brought by the S.E.C. accusing a major Wall Street institution of misleading customers about who was putting together a security and about their motive. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Company both settled similar cases last year.
The settlement will refund investors with interest and include a $95 million fine — a relative pittance for a giant like Citigroup. On Monday, the company reported that in the third quarter alone it earned profits of $3.8 billion on revenue of $20.8 billion. The settlement may also have trouble getting approval from Jed S. Rakoff, the federal district judge in New York who must ultimately sign off on the fine and who has taken a hard line on S.E.C. settlements.
Neither the S.E.C. nor the Justice Department would say whether the case raised questions about whether Citigroup had been involved in any criminal wrongdoing. But the case highlights a growing frustration felt by foreclosed homeowners, investors and Wall Street protesters alike that few, if any, senior banking executives have faced criminal charges for losses growing out of the financial crisis.
Citigroup has settled one case stemming from the crisis. Last year, it agreed to pay $75 million to settle federal claims that it hid from investors vast holdings of subprime mortgage investments that were losing value during the crisis and that ultimately prompted the federal government to rescue the bank.
“The securities laws demand that investors receive more care and candor than Citigroup provided” to investors in the security, said Robert Khuzami, director of the S.E.C.’s enforcement division, referring to Wednesday’s action. “Investors were not informed that Citigroup had decided to bet against them and had helped to choose the assets that would determine who won or lost.”
The complex amalgamation of investments known as Class V Funding III produced $126 million in profits for Citigroup’s brokerage subsidiary, and another $34 million in fees for putting it together. All of that, including interest and the $95 million fine, will now be going back to the investors; the government will not receive anything.
In a statement, Citigroup noted that the S.E.C. did not charge it with “intentional or reckless misconduct.” Rather, it settled charges that its actions were negligent and misleading to investors. Despite its profits on the current deal, over all Citigroup lost tens of billions of dollars on its holdings of mortgage-related investments.
“We are pleased to put this matter behind us and are focused on contributing to the economic recovery, serving our clients and growing responsibly,” the company said in a statement. “Since the crisis, we have bolstered our financial strength, overhauled the risk management function, significantly reduced risk on the balance sheet and returned to the basics of banking.”
The S.E.C. on Wednesday also brought a case against Credit Suisse, which played a smaller role in the transaction, and against one individual at each company. But those individuals were midlevel employees in each company’s investment and trading departments; no senior executives at either company were charged...
By EDWARD WYATT
New York Times
October 19, 2011
WASHINGTON — As the housing market began its collapse, Wall Street firms and sophisticated investors searched for ways to profit. Some of them found an easy method: Stuff a portfolio with risky mortgage-related investments, sell it to unsuspecting customers and bet against it.
Citigroup on Wednesday agreed to pay $285 million to settle a civil complaint by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it had defrauded investors who bought just such a deal. The transaction involved a $1 billion portfolio of mortgage-related investments, many of which were handpicked for the portfolio by Citigroup without telling investors of its role or that it had made bets that the investments would fall in value.
In the four years since the housing market began its steady descent, securities regulators have settled only two cases related to the financial crisis for a larger sum of money. This is also the third case brought by the S.E.C. accusing a major Wall Street institution of misleading customers about who was putting together a security and about their motive. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Company both settled similar cases last year.
The settlement will refund investors with interest and include a $95 million fine — a relative pittance for a giant like Citigroup. On Monday, the company reported that in the third quarter alone it earned profits of $3.8 billion on revenue of $20.8 billion. The settlement may also have trouble getting approval from Jed S. Rakoff, the federal district judge in New York who must ultimately sign off on the fine and who has taken a hard line on S.E.C. settlements.
Neither the S.E.C. nor the Justice Department would say whether the case raised questions about whether Citigroup had been involved in any criminal wrongdoing. But the case highlights a growing frustration felt by foreclosed homeowners, investors and Wall Street protesters alike that few, if any, senior banking executives have faced criminal charges for losses growing out of the financial crisis.
Citigroup has settled one case stemming from the crisis. Last year, it agreed to pay $75 million to settle federal claims that it hid from investors vast holdings of subprime mortgage investments that were losing value during the crisis and that ultimately prompted the federal government to rescue the bank.
“The securities laws demand that investors receive more care and candor than Citigroup provided” to investors in the security, said Robert Khuzami, director of the S.E.C.’s enforcement division, referring to Wednesday’s action. “Investors were not informed that Citigroup had decided to bet against them and had helped to choose the assets that would determine who won or lost.”
The complex amalgamation of investments known as Class V Funding III produced $126 million in profits for Citigroup’s brokerage subsidiary, and another $34 million in fees for putting it together. All of that, including interest and the $95 million fine, will now be going back to the investors; the government will not receive anything.
In a statement, Citigroup noted that the S.E.C. did not charge it with “intentional or reckless misconduct.” Rather, it settled charges that its actions were negligent and misleading to investors. Despite its profits on the current deal, over all Citigroup lost tens of billions of dollars on its holdings of mortgage-related investments.
“We are pleased to put this matter behind us and are focused on contributing to the economic recovery, serving our clients and growing responsibly,” the company said in a statement. “Since the crisis, we have bolstered our financial strength, overhauled the risk management function, significantly reduced risk on the balance sheet and returned to the basics of banking.”
The S.E.C. on Wednesday also brought a case against Credit Suisse, which played a smaller role in the transaction, and against one individual at each company. But those individuals were midlevel employees in each company’s investment and trading departments; no senior executives at either company were charged...
Friday, November 11, 2011
At last, the SEC shows more respect to Markopolos (terrific name, right?) than to Bernie Madoff
Seven SEC employees disciplined on failure to stop Madoff fraud
By David S. Hilzenrath
November 11, 2011
The Securities and Exchange Commission, which failed to stop Bernard Madoff’s long-running investment fraud despite repeated warnings, has disciplined seven agency employees over their handling of the matter but did not fire anyone, a person familiar with the actions said.
An eighth employee resigned before disciplinary action was taken, the person said.
The SEC’s head of human resources had recommended that SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro fire one individual, according to a second person, an official involved in the process. The human resources head took that position after a law firm hired by the SEC to advise it on the disciplinary actions also recommended that the employee be fired, the official said.
The law firm, Fortney & Scott, “recommended formal disciplinary action, including removal from service,” for an assistant regional director at the SEC, the agency’s inspector general said in an August report.
The punishments given the employees varied and included suspensions, pay cuts and demotions, according to the first person familiar with the matter. An employee who received one of the most severe sanctions got a 30-day suspension and a demotion. Another was given a pay cut of about 6 percent. At the low end, one employee was suspended for seven days, another for three days and yet another was issued a “counseling memo,” which is a step below a reprimand.
The SEC’s disciplinary process with respect to the Madoff matter was concluded months ago, SEC spokesman John Nester said Friday. He had no other immediate comment.
When the law firm advising the SEC recommended that an employee be fired, it included a qualifier, the second person familiar with the matter said. If the SEC thought it was important to avoid losing that individual’s services, it could consider a different punishment.
The people who spoke about the disciplinary process did so on condition of anonymity. One cited the sensitivity of the information and the other was not authorized to discuss it.
Madoff’s fraud cost investors billions of dollars, shattered lives, and became perhaps the biggest embarrassment in the SEC’s history. After Madoff’s house of cards collapsed in 2008, a financial sleuth named Harry Markopolos became famous for having tried in vain to get SEC employees to see through the scam...
By David S. Hilzenrath
November 11, 2011
The Securities and Exchange Commission, which failed to stop Bernard Madoff’s long-running investment fraud despite repeated warnings, has disciplined seven agency employees over their handling of the matter but did not fire anyone, a person familiar with the actions said.
An eighth employee resigned before disciplinary action was taken, the person said.
The SEC’s head of human resources had recommended that SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro fire one individual, according to a second person, an official involved in the process. The human resources head took that position after a law firm hired by the SEC to advise it on the disciplinary actions also recommended that the employee be fired, the official said.
The law firm, Fortney & Scott, “recommended formal disciplinary action, including removal from service,” for an assistant regional director at the SEC, the agency’s inspector general said in an August report.
The punishments given the employees varied and included suspensions, pay cuts and demotions, according to the first person familiar with the matter. An employee who received one of the most severe sanctions got a 30-day suspension and a demotion. Another was given a pay cut of about 6 percent. At the low end, one employee was suspended for seven days, another for three days and yet another was issued a “counseling memo,” which is a step below a reprimand.
The SEC’s disciplinary process with respect to the Madoff matter was concluded months ago, SEC spokesman John Nester said Friday. He had no other immediate comment.
When the law firm advising the SEC recommended that an employee be fired, it included a qualifier, the second person familiar with the matter said. If the SEC thought it was important to avoid losing that individual’s services, it could consider a different punishment.
The people who spoke about the disciplinary process did so on condition of anonymity. One cited the sensitivity of the information and the other was not authorized to discuss it.
Madoff’s fraud cost investors billions of dollars, shattered lives, and became perhaps the biggest embarrassment in the SEC’s history. After Madoff’s house of cards collapsed in 2008, a financial sleuth named Harry Markopolos became famous for having tried in vain to get SEC employees to see through the scam...
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Darrell Issa’s personal Goldman rep arranged Elizabeth Warren perjury showdown
Darrell Issa’s personal Goldman rep arranged Elizabeth Warren perjury showdown
Lucas O’Connor
Courage Campaing
August 26, 2011
There are more and more wrinkles in the troubling saga of the former Goldman Sachs VP hired by Issa to protect Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms from accountability on the Hill. It now looks as though he was also personally responsible for the scheduling disagreement between Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Patrick McHenry that quickly mushroomed into a debacle of McHenry twice accusing Warren of perjury.
Goldman Sachs has dropped millions on lobbying Congress and now it looks like they've gotten themselves a mole as well, courtesy of Darrell Issa. Issa and McHenry, of course, have themselves been the beneficiaries of generous campaign donations from giant financial firms throughout their careers.
~ While on that subject, the Goldman exec in question claimed last week that he had change his name to honor his family's Transylvanian heritage. Submitted with nothing but amazement, it appears that heritage is about service to an Hungarian fascit military dictator who was an early ally of Hitler's regime in Germany. So... there's that.
~ Some credit where it's due -- Issa has been ahead of the curve on government giving up. Back in January, he proposed not just ending the HAMP program designed to help struggling homeowners, but replacing it with nothing. His plan was to just spend the money instead on... well... nothing. Now it looks like $30 billion originally earmarked for foreclosure relief will be spent on nothing, because congressional Republicans aren't interested in rerouting the money.
~ New numbers show that in the last few years, private companies have seen record profits per employee, indicating that these businesses can but are not hiring. The profit rate has spiked 12% during the same period that Darrell Issa and others have continued insisting that supply-side economic policies of giving more money to private companies would spur job growth...
Monday, August 22, 2011
Darrell Issa (R-Goldman Sachs): Most of the time, when wealthy people are elected to office, they put their investments into a blind trust
Darrell Issa (R-Goldman Sachs)
Courage Campaign
Rick Jacobs
Most of the time, when wealthy people are elected to office, they put their investments into a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest.
But Rep. Darrell Issa -- one of the richest people in America -- didn't do that. He still personally manages hundreds of millions of dollars, and it seems to drive a lot of his official decisions.
Tell Issa to focus on his full time job as a congressman, not on managing his money. Put your money in a blind trust or resign from Congress.
A new report finds that Darrell Issa hired a Goldman Sachs Vice President to run interference on new Wall Street regulations... but only after he changed his name. It's the latest in Issa's long string of conflicts of interest and corporate favoritism, a list that's gotten so long that the New York Times put the problem on the front page this week.
We already know that Issa-as-Chairman is bad news. He asked corporate lobbyists and industry groups to set his committee's agenda, cancelled a hearing when facts didn't fit his narrative, and still won't disclose what lobbyists he meets with. He's steered earmarks to fund improvements around his investment properties, and he's a big fan of South Carolina's taxpayer-funded $900 million corporate handout -- in exchange for the corporation's promise to cut employee wages and benefits.
Stop insulting your constituents and America. Stop spending your spare time looking for personal investment opportunities in his laws and Oversight investigations. The credibility of his committee -- and Issa himself -- requires that he move his money to blind trust now.
Issa has spent his entire life trying to play by special rules, and that hasn't changed just because he has more power now. This week, we've seen once again that so long as Issa is trying to legislate and turn a profit at the same time, he just isn't able to keep them separate. And that's a huge problem.
It's high time that Darrell Issa get focused on responsible oversight and assure us that he isn't still trying to work angles for his own benefit.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Financial Crisis Panel Commissioners Leaked Confidential Information To Lobbyists, Report Alleges
Financial Crisis Panel Commissioners Leaked Confidential Information To Lobbyists, Report Alleges
7/13/11
Shahien Nasiripour
Huffpost
Republican commissioners on the panel created by Congress to probe the roots of the financial crisis leaked documents to partisan allies and shared confidential information with influence peddlers, according to a Wednesday report by Democrats on a Congressional oversight committee.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California, sought to investigate allegations that the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was mismanaged by its Democratic majority, misused taxpayer funds, was compromised by conflicts of interest and colluded with Democrats in Congress as they sought to pass a financial reform bill.
Instead, the 400,000 emails and documents obtained by the investigative committee show that Republican commissioner Peter Wallison broke confidentiality rules by leaking documents to Ed Pinto, a colleague of his at the American Enterprise Institute, a prominent right-leaning Washington-based research and policy organization.
The misconduct did not stop there, according to the report. The assistant of Bill Thomas, the panel's vice chairman and another of the four Republican commissioners, shared information about the commission's hearings, targets and investigative direction with one of Thomas's colleagues at law firm Buchanan, Ingersoll, and Rooney, one of Washington's top lobbying shops. In one case, Thomas's colleague, Alex Brill, asked Thomas's assistant in a March 31, 2010, email about an upcoming hearing on Citigroup for his "friend who represents Citi." The bank was concerned it would be unfairly singled out at its hearing, wrote Brill, who is also the chief executive of economic and political consulting firm Matrix Global Advisors.
The partisan bent of the report, its findings and the investigation that led to it lends credence to the central criticisms that have long dogged the panel: A commission led by former politicians rather than prosecutors and economists would never get to the bottom of the financial crisis, and its findings would inevitably be viewed as a political report rather than as an objective look at the companies, policies and practices that caused the most punishing downturn since the Great Depression.
The House oversight committee was to hold a hearing Wednesday on the crisis commission. It was postponed to a future undetermined date, the crisis commission's former chairman, Phil Angelides, said in an email. Thomas and Brill did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.
Wallison violated the commission's ethics rules by leaking confidential information to Pinto on "several" occasions, the report alleges.
In one case, the crisis commission's general counsel concluded that Wallison violated the ethics code by sharing a confidential staff memo with Pinto that used private housing data provided by the Federal Reserve under a confidentiality agreement between the commission and the Fed. Wallison and Pinto both pointed to government housing policies as the primary cause of the financial crisis, a position rejected by the broader committee.
Wallison acknowledged that he supplied Pinto with the confidential staff memo, but said he didn't know it was confidential at the time.
He also said that Pinto deserved to see the memo anyway, as the data its conclusions were based on directly challenged Pinto's data and his claim that the crisis was largely caused by government homeowners policies and subprime lending by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
"I get this memo criticizing Pinto's data -- what was I supposed to do?" Wallison said. "Pinto should be the one to respond to criticism of his data."
Pinto said Wallison sent him the FCIC memo with a simple question: "What do you think?"
Both men maintain that Fannie and Freddie's subprime mortgage activities directly led to the crisis, despite an avalanche of data that has led government and university economists to conclude otherwise.
Perhaps more distressing to the House oversight committee's Democratic staff was the unauthorized disclosure of information about the crisis commission's investigations to Brill, a Washington influence peddler who once worked as a senior adviser to Thomas when he led the House Ways and Means Committee.
Thomas's assistant, who wasn't named in the Democratic report, shared with Brill internal draft reports; information about internal commission deliberations; plans to investigate foreign banks; and the commission planned treatment of certain companies under investigation, according to internal emails obtained by the House oversight committee.
The committee noted that it could not find any record of Brill working for the crisis commission in an official or advisory capacity. The committee also could not find any record of Brill signing a confidentiality agreement, a requirement of commission employment.
In one instance, Thomas's assistant emailed Brill a draft of a then-confidential staff report on Wells Fargo's 2008 acquisition of Wachovia, a teetering, giant bank that was being battered by turmoil in the financial markets. The assistant also shared information about the crisis commission's possible witness list for its hearing on the issue.
In a response, Brill made a number of suggestions he hoped the assistant would share with Thomas.
In another instance, Brill asked the assistant about the commission's plans to probe foreign banks.
Thomas's assistant not only said the commission was going to investigate these institutions in his reply, but he named them as well, identifying Deutsche Bank, UBS, BNP Paribas, RBS and Lazard Freres as institutions the commission was probing "for various purposes."
In March 2010, Brill asked the assistant about the crisis commission's plans for its upcoming hearing on Citigroup. Brill states on his firm's website that he's helped a "Wall Street investment bank" navigate policy matters in Washington.
"Fyi, just heard from my friend who represents Citi," Brill wrote in an email. "I guess Citi feels afraid that they will be painted as one of the worst offenders of subprime when really they think that they only dabbled in subprime. I don't know the truth in any of this but I guess the titles of the panels make this look like citi is the subprime devil while WMT [Thomas] was explaining to me that Citi is a great target to study because they did a bit of everything and that is more true for Citi than for anyone else. Any thoughts?"
Later that same day, Thomas's assistant replied to Brill, explaining how the commission would likely treat Citigroup officials during their hearing.
"They aren't going to be painted as a particularly bad offender of subprime origination, because they weren't a bad offender in that area," the assistant wrote. "However, they ended up taking $55B in losses associated with subprime and then got $45B in TARP and a government guarantee on $300B of assets. And their risk management re: their subprime exposure was, by any account, pretty awful. And, it is true that they are a good example because they did a little of everything, which means that we can discuss the entire subprime-universe during their hearing. So, while I don't think they will come across as the person who as ripping off the American public, I think they may come across as a pretty poorly managed company."
It's unclear whether Brill passed on this information to any clients or Citigroup representatives, the House oversight report notes.
In an Aug 2010 email to Angelides, the crisis panel's general counsel explained how such unauthorized disclosures could impede the commission's investigation, and open it up to legal liability.
"Disclosure of commission confidential information will gravely impair the commission's ability to conduct its business in the future by making it hard to secure the cooperation of other information providers in accessing their confidential information," he wrote. "And could expose the commission to damage claims for the improper release thereof."
7/13/11
Shahien Nasiripour
Huffpost
Republican commissioners on the panel created by Congress to probe the roots of the financial crisis leaked documents to partisan allies and shared confidential information with influence peddlers, according to a Wednesday report by Democrats on a Congressional oversight committee.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, led by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California, sought to investigate allegations that the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was mismanaged by its Democratic majority, misused taxpayer funds, was compromised by conflicts of interest and colluded with Democrats in Congress as they sought to pass a financial reform bill.
Instead, the 400,000 emails and documents obtained by the investigative committee show that Republican commissioner Peter Wallison broke confidentiality rules by leaking documents to Ed Pinto, a colleague of his at the American Enterprise Institute, a prominent right-leaning Washington-based research and policy organization.
The misconduct did not stop there, according to the report. The assistant of Bill Thomas, the panel's vice chairman and another of the four Republican commissioners, shared information about the commission's hearings, targets and investigative direction with one of Thomas's colleagues at law firm Buchanan, Ingersoll, and Rooney, one of Washington's top lobbying shops. In one case, Thomas's colleague, Alex Brill, asked Thomas's assistant in a March 31, 2010, email about an upcoming hearing on Citigroup for his "friend who represents Citi." The bank was concerned it would be unfairly singled out at its hearing, wrote Brill, who is also the chief executive of economic and political consulting firm Matrix Global Advisors.
The partisan bent of the report, its findings and the investigation that led to it lends credence to the central criticisms that have long dogged the panel: A commission led by former politicians rather than prosecutors and economists would never get to the bottom of the financial crisis, and its findings would inevitably be viewed as a political report rather than as an objective look at the companies, policies and practices that caused the most punishing downturn since the Great Depression.
The House oversight committee was to hold a hearing Wednesday on the crisis commission. It was postponed to a future undetermined date, the crisis commission's former chairman, Phil Angelides, said in an email. Thomas and Brill did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.
Wallison violated the commission's ethics rules by leaking confidential information to Pinto on "several" occasions, the report alleges.
In one case, the crisis commission's general counsel concluded that Wallison violated the ethics code by sharing a confidential staff memo with Pinto that used private housing data provided by the Federal Reserve under a confidentiality agreement between the commission and the Fed. Wallison and Pinto both pointed to government housing policies as the primary cause of the financial crisis, a position rejected by the broader committee.
Wallison acknowledged that he supplied Pinto with the confidential staff memo, but said he didn't know it was confidential at the time.
He also said that Pinto deserved to see the memo anyway, as the data its conclusions were based on directly challenged Pinto's data and his claim that the crisis was largely caused by government homeowners policies and subprime lending by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
"I get this memo criticizing Pinto's data -- what was I supposed to do?" Wallison said. "Pinto should be the one to respond to criticism of his data."
Pinto said Wallison sent him the FCIC memo with a simple question: "What do you think?"
Both men maintain that Fannie and Freddie's subprime mortgage activities directly led to the crisis, despite an avalanche of data that has led government and university economists to conclude otherwise.
Perhaps more distressing to the House oversight committee's Democratic staff was the unauthorized disclosure of information about the crisis commission's investigations to Brill, a Washington influence peddler who once worked as a senior adviser to Thomas when he led the House Ways and Means Committee.
Thomas's assistant, who wasn't named in the Democratic report, shared with Brill internal draft reports; information about internal commission deliberations; plans to investigate foreign banks; and the commission planned treatment of certain companies under investigation, according to internal emails obtained by the House oversight committee.
The committee noted that it could not find any record of Brill working for the crisis commission in an official or advisory capacity. The committee also could not find any record of Brill signing a confidentiality agreement, a requirement of commission employment.
In one instance, Thomas's assistant emailed Brill a draft of a then-confidential staff report on Wells Fargo's 2008 acquisition of Wachovia, a teetering, giant bank that was being battered by turmoil in the financial markets. The assistant also shared information about the crisis commission's possible witness list for its hearing on the issue.
In a response, Brill made a number of suggestions he hoped the assistant would share with Thomas.
In another instance, Brill asked the assistant about the commission's plans to probe foreign banks.
Thomas's assistant not only said the commission was going to investigate these institutions in his reply, but he named them as well, identifying Deutsche Bank, UBS, BNP Paribas, RBS and Lazard Freres as institutions the commission was probing "for various purposes."
In March 2010, Brill asked the assistant about the crisis commission's plans for its upcoming hearing on Citigroup. Brill states on his firm's website that he's helped a "Wall Street investment bank" navigate policy matters in Washington.
"Fyi, just heard from my friend who represents Citi," Brill wrote in an email. "I guess Citi feels afraid that they will be painted as one of the worst offenders of subprime when really they think that they only dabbled in subprime. I don't know the truth in any of this but I guess the titles of the panels make this look like citi is the subprime devil while WMT [Thomas] was explaining to me that Citi is a great target to study because they did a bit of everything and that is more true for Citi than for anyone else. Any thoughts?"
Later that same day, Thomas's assistant replied to Brill, explaining how the commission would likely treat Citigroup officials during their hearing.
"They aren't going to be painted as a particularly bad offender of subprime origination, because they weren't a bad offender in that area," the assistant wrote. "However, they ended up taking $55B in losses associated with subprime and then got $45B in TARP and a government guarantee on $300B of assets. And their risk management re: their subprime exposure was, by any account, pretty awful. And, it is true that they are a good example because they did a little of everything, which means that we can discuss the entire subprime-universe during their hearing. So, while I don't think they will come across as the person who as ripping off the American public, I think they may come across as a pretty poorly managed company."
It's unclear whether Brill passed on this information to any clients or Citigroup representatives, the House oversight report notes.
In an Aug 2010 email to Angelides, the crisis panel's general counsel explained how such unauthorized disclosures could impede the commission's investigation, and open it up to legal liability.
"Disclosure of commission confidential information will gravely impair the commission's ability to conduct its business in the future by making it hard to secure the cooperation of other information providers in accessing their confidential information," he wrote. "And could expose the commission to damage claims for the improper release thereof."
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Duncan Hunter Aide Protected by Firm Formerly Known as Blackwater
Duncan Hunter Aide Protected by Firm Formerly Known as Blackwater
By Matt Potter
San Diego Reader
June 29, 2011
A top aide to GOP congressman Duncan Hunter headed for Africa this spring on a trip paid for by the International Republican Institute, whose board, chairehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifd by Arizona senator John McCain, includes such other Republican stalwarts as Senator Lindsey Graham and Brent Scowcroft, a key national security advisor in the administrations of Nixon, Ford, and both Bushes. Victoria Middleton, Hunter’s chief of staff, received travel expenses of $7999.98, including business class airfare, lodging of $901.21, and meals of $340.55, to be an election observer in Lagos and Abuja, Nigeria, from April 11 through April 18.
According to Middleton’s travel report, the institute “has observed every election in Nigeria since they ended military rule.” Her observation team was housed at the Transcorp Hilton Abuja at a rate of “$376 per night or less.” One reason for choosing the Hilton, the report says, is that “It has very few instances of food poisoning and otherwise meets international health standards.”
The government-funded institute, closely linked to the Republican Party, is controversial in some quarters for its ties to the Central Intelligence Agency and Blackwater USA (now known as Xe). According to an account last year in Norfolk’s Virginian-Pilot, Blackwater had a five-year, no-bid contract to protect the institute’s operations in Iraq. Internal Revenue Service filings by the institute showed that it paid Blackwater $50 million, more than a fifth of the institute’s budget, over a three-year period between October 2005 and September 2008, according to the paper. Eight “democracy building” grants from the State Department to the institute have totaled $131 million since 2004, the paper added.
According to Middleton’s itinerary, upon its arrival in Abuja her delegation received a “Security Overview” from Greystone, which the New York Times reported last September was among 30 “shell companies” that Blackwater set up after the firm ran into controversy in Iraq.
Comments
I am a spokesperson for the International Republican Institute. IRI has no ties to the CIA. Those are conspiracy theories made-up by dictators who will do anything to hold on to power and others who are threatened by real democracy. IRI takes seriously the security of its staff and the volunteers who travel with the Institute. I can’t imagine the outcry if IRI abdicated its responsibility for security and as a result a volunteer was killed. You can learn about IRI at www.iri.org.>
By lgates 9:21 a.m., Jun 29, 2011
I'd feel a lot better if the "International Republican Institute" were more connected to the Central Intelligence Agency than to Blackwater, Xe or Greystone -- those now-notorious private firms made up of unaccountable soldiers of fortune who shoot up Iraqi civilians and answer to no civil authority.
By Matt Potter
San Diego Reader
June 29, 2011
A top aide to GOP congressman Duncan Hunter headed for Africa this spring on a trip paid for by the International Republican Institute, whose board, chairehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifd by Arizona senator John McCain, includes such other Republican stalwarts as Senator Lindsey Graham and Brent Scowcroft, a key national security advisor in the administrations of Nixon, Ford, and both Bushes. Victoria Middleton, Hunter’s chief of staff, received travel expenses of $7999.98, including business class airfare, lodging of $901.21, and meals of $340.55, to be an election observer in Lagos and Abuja, Nigeria, from April 11 through April 18.
According to Middleton’s travel report, the institute “has observed every election in Nigeria since they ended military rule.” Her observation team was housed at the Transcorp Hilton Abuja at a rate of “$376 per night or less.” One reason for choosing the Hilton, the report says, is that “It has very few instances of food poisoning and otherwise meets international health standards.”
The government-funded institute, closely linked to the Republican Party, is controversial in some quarters for its ties to the Central Intelligence Agency and Blackwater USA (now known as Xe). According to an account last year in Norfolk’s Virginian-Pilot, Blackwater had a five-year, no-bid contract to protect the institute’s operations in Iraq. Internal Revenue Service filings by the institute showed that it paid Blackwater $50 million, more than a fifth of the institute’s budget, over a three-year period between October 2005 and September 2008, according to the paper. Eight “democracy building” grants from the State Department to the institute have totaled $131 million since 2004, the paper added.
According to Middleton’s itinerary, upon its arrival in Abuja her delegation received a “Security Overview” from Greystone, which the New York Times reported last September was among 30 “shell companies” that Blackwater set up after the firm ran into controversy in Iraq.
Comments
I am a spokesperson for the International Republican Institute. IRI has no ties to the CIA. Those are conspiracy theories made-up by dictators who will do anything to hold on to power and others who are threatened by real democracy. IRI takes seriously the security of its staff and the volunteers who travel with the Institute. I can’t imagine the outcry if IRI abdicated its responsibility for security and as a result a volunteer was killed. You can learn about IRI at www.iri.org.>
By lgates 9:21 a.m., Jun 29, 2011
I'd feel a lot better if the "International Republican Institute" were more connected to the Central Intelligence Agency than to Blackwater, Xe or Greystone -- those now-notorious private firms made up of unaccountable soldiers of fortune who shoot up Iraqi civilians and answer to no civil authority.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Throw Clarence Thomas Off the Bench:The Supreme Court justice broke the law by not disclosing his wife's $700K
Throw Clarence Thomas Off the Bench
The Supreme Court justice broke the law by not disclosing his wife's $700K think-tank payday. Paul Campos on Clarence Thomas' "preposterous" defense and why he likely won't be punished.
March 3, 2011
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
The criminal-law scholar George Fletcher once quipped that the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is one of the few fundamental principles of law that most people actually know. As harsh as this principle may sometimes be when applied to ordinary citizens, applying it to justices of the Supreme Court seems only reasonable.
campos-thomas_164100
Clarence Thomas. Credit: Dennis Brack / Getty Images
Thus it's difficult to feel sympathy for Clarence Thomas, as he finds himself embroiled in a controversy over his failure to reveal the sources of his wife's non-investment income (or indeed that she even had any such income). The 1978 Ethics in Government Act requires all federal judges to fill out annual financial-disclosure forms. The relevant question on the disclosure form isn't complicated: Even if Justice Thomas wasn't a lawyer, he shouldn't have needed to hire one to explain to him that the box marked NONE next to the phrase "Spouse's Non-Investment Income" should only be checked if his spouse had no non-investment income.
In fact Ginni Thomas was paid nearly $700,000 by the Heritage Foundation, a "conservative think tank," between 2003 and 2007, as well as an undisclosed amount by another lobbying group in 2009. Justice Thomas' false statements regarding his wife's income certainly constitute a misdemeanor, and quite probably a felony, under federal law. (They would be felonies if he were prosecuted under 18. U.S.C. 1001, which criminalizes knowingly making false statements of material fact to a federal agency. This is the law Martha Stewart was convicted of breaking by lying to investigators.)
Thomas' defense is that he didn't knowingly violate the law, because he " misunderstood" the filing requirements. This is preposterous on its face. Bill Clinton was impeached—and subsequently disbarred—for defending his false statements about his affair with Monica Lewinsky with an excuse that wasn't as incredible as the one Thomas is now employing.
The Supreme Court justice broke the law by not disclosing his wife's $700K think-tank payday. Paul Campos on Clarence Thomas' "preposterous" defense and why he likely won't be punished.
March 3, 2011
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
The criminal-law scholar George Fletcher once quipped that the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is one of the few fundamental principles of law that most people actually know. As harsh as this principle may sometimes be when applied to ordinary citizens, applying it to justices of the Supreme Court seems only reasonable.
campos-thomas_164100
Clarence Thomas. Credit: Dennis Brack / Getty Images
Thus it's difficult to feel sympathy for Clarence Thomas, as he finds himself embroiled in a controversy over his failure to reveal the sources of his wife's non-investment income (or indeed that she even had any such income). The 1978 Ethics in Government Act requires all federal judges to fill out annual financial-disclosure forms. The relevant question on the disclosure form isn't complicated: Even if Justice Thomas wasn't a lawyer, he shouldn't have needed to hire one to explain to him that the box marked NONE next to the phrase "Spouse's Non-Investment Income" should only be checked if his spouse had no non-investment income.
In fact Ginni Thomas was paid nearly $700,000 by the Heritage Foundation, a "conservative think tank," between 2003 and 2007, as well as an undisclosed amount by another lobbying group in 2009. Justice Thomas' false statements regarding his wife's income certainly constitute a misdemeanor, and quite probably a felony, under federal law. (They would be felonies if he were prosecuted under 18. U.S.C. 1001, which criminalizes knowingly making false statements of material fact to a federal agency. This is the law Martha Stewart was convicted of breaking by lying to investigators.)
Thomas' defense is that he didn't knowingly violate the law, because he " misunderstood" the filing requirements. This is preposterous on its face. Bill Clinton was impeached—and subsequently disbarred—for defending his false statements about his affair with Monica Lewinsky with an excuse that wasn't as incredible as the one Thomas is now employing.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Even in an era of budget cuts, these government programs won’t die
I think scholarships are a reasonable use of government funds. Young people deserve good educations. But the farm subsidies are another story.
Even in an era of budget cuts, these government programs won’t die
THE WASHINGTON POST
By David A. Fahrenthold
April 20, 2011
The programs sound innocuous enough: One spends federal money to store cotton bales. Another offers scholars a chance to study Asian-American relations. Two others pay to market U.S. oranges in Asia and clean up abandoned coal mines.
But in Washington’s wonkier circles, these are the federal budget’s equivalent of Jason Voorhees, the hockey-masked movie villain who could take an ax in the skull and come back for the sequel.
They are the Line Items That Won’t Die.
In recent years, leaders in both parties — including, in some cases, presidents from both parties — have singled out these four programs, worth a total of about $337 million, to either be eliminated or lose millions in funding. But they have survived, again and again, thanks to powerful lobbies or high-placed patrons in Congress. Even this year, after Congress cut $38 billion from the budget, they live on.
Now, in the lull before the next budget battle, watchdog groups say these often-criticized programs show the difficulty of the task ahead.
“This is why Ronald Reagan said that a government program is the closest thing to eternal life that we’ve ever seen on Earth,” said Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation. “If lawmakers can’t cut programs that cost a few million, how are they going to cut deficits that are going to be in the trillions?”
Among the survivors this year was the East-West Center, a Honolulu nonprofit that has long been one of the budget’s great immortals.
The center runs exchange programs for U.S. and Asian journalists and young professionals, conducts research and offers scholarships to study at the University of Hawaii. For 2010, President Obama’s budget proposed reducing its federal funding from $21 million to $12 million, arguing that this would encourage the center to seek other sources for money.
That went nowhere.
The center has a powerful ally in Congress: Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Instead of shrinking by millions, the center’s subsidy went up by $2 million...
Buy American, overseas
At the Agriculture Department, the budget deal spared another untouchable: the Market Access Program.
The program costs about $200 million a year and pays to promote U.S. agricultural products in foreign markets. That could mean holding something as simple as a taste test in the aisles of Asian supermarkets, pitting California pistachios against Iranian ones.
In past years, this was one of the rare things that united Obama and the ultra-conservative Republican Study Committee.
The program’s “economic impact is unclear,” Obama’s 2011 budget said. It recommended a 20 percent cut.
“Taxpayers should not be forced to pick up the tab for this kind of corporate welfare,” said the GOP committee, whose members include 175 of 241 House Republicans. It recommended eliminating the whole thing.
But the program has powerful supporters: the U.S. farm lobby.
“It’s the government’s responsibility to help us counter the heavy subsidization enjoyed by our competitors,” said Michael Wootton, a senior vice president at Sunkist Growers and chairman of a coalition that has lobbied to keep the Market Access Program.
Sunkist, a nonprofit group of citrus growers that took in $1 billion in gross sales in fiscal 2010, got $4 million from the government through the program. Wootton said that advertising helps offset the benefits that foreign growers get from government subsidies and tariffs. “With that brand, and that identity, we’re able to effectively overcome the price differential” with cheaper foreign-produced products, Wootton said.
This year, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) proposed a budget amendment that would have cut off the money for the program’s staff.
It never came up for a vote.
Quietly surviving
Other often-criticized programs have also survived without much debate. One of them, intended to clean up abandoned coal mines, sends millions every year to states that are finished cleaning up their highest-priority sites.
The Republican Study Committee has called for cutting this program. So did the bipartisan debt commission. So did Obama, starting in 2009.
“We cut $115 million from a program that pays states to clean up mines that have already been cleaned up,” Obama said the next year, as he laid out the reductions he planned in his budget.
It didn’t happen then. And it didn’t happen this year. The program, which state governments say they still need, was not altered by Congress.
Also unchanged: a program that pays cotton and peanut farmers to store their bales and bushels in warehouses. The idea is to let farmers keep their crop off the market while prices are low. The federal government will still budget $2 million a year, despite criticism from Obama and before him George W. Bush.
Not all of the budget’s immortals escaped serious cuts this year.
Congress eliminated $42 million for the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program, named for the longtime senator from West Virginia. It cut $10 million from the National Drug Intelligence Center, a facility in Johnstown, Pa., promoted by House titan John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). And it took more than half the federal funds from the Denali Commission, an agency created by long-serving senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
All three programs share one trait. Their champions in Congress — Byrd, Murtha and Stevens — all recently died.
Even in an era of budget cuts, these government programs won’t die
THE WASHINGTON POST
By David A. Fahrenthold
April 20, 2011
The programs sound innocuous enough: One spends federal money to store cotton bales. Another offers scholars a chance to study Asian-American relations. Two others pay to market U.S. oranges in Asia and clean up abandoned coal mines.
But in Washington’s wonkier circles, these are the federal budget’s equivalent of Jason Voorhees, the hockey-masked movie villain who could take an ax in the skull and come back for the sequel.
They are the Line Items That Won’t Die.
In recent years, leaders in both parties — including, in some cases, presidents from both parties — have singled out these four programs, worth a total of about $337 million, to either be eliminated or lose millions in funding. But they have survived, again and again, thanks to powerful lobbies or high-placed patrons in Congress. Even this year, after Congress cut $38 billion from the budget, they live on.
Now, in the lull before the next budget battle, watchdog groups say these often-criticized programs show the difficulty of the task ahead.
“This is why Ronald Reagan said that a government program is the closest thing to eternal life that we’ve ever seen on Earth,” said Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation. “If lawmakers can’t cut programs that cost a few million, how are they going to cut deficits that are going to be in the trillions?”
Among the survivors this year was the East-West Center, a Honolulu nonprofit that has long been one of the budget’s great immortals.
The center runs exchange programs for U.S. and Asian journalists and young professionals, conducts research and offers scholarships to study at the University of Hawaii. For 2010, President Obama’s budget proposed reducing its federal funding from $21 million to $12 million, arguing that this would encourage the center to seek other sources for money.
That went nowhere.
The center has a powerful ally in Congress: Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Instead of shrinking by millions, the center’s subsidy went up by $2 million...
Buy American, overseas
At the Agriculture Department, the budget deal spared another untouchable: the Market Access Program.
The program costs about $200 million a year and pays to promote U.S. agricultural products in foreign markets. That could mean holding something as simple as a taste test in the aisles of Asian supermarkets, pitting California pistachios against Iranian ones.
In past years, this was one of the rare things that united Obama and the ultra-conservative Republican Study Committee.
The program’s “economic impact is unclear,” Obama’s 2011 budget said. It recommended a 20 percent cut.
“Taxpayers should not be forced to pick up the tab for this kind of corporate welfare,” said the GOP committee, whose members include 175 of 241 House Republicans. It recommended eliminating the whole thing.
But the program has powerful supporters: the U.S. farm lobby.
“It’s the government’s responsibility to help us counter the heavy subsidization enjoyed by our competitors,” said Michael Wootton, a senior vice president at Sunkist Growers and chairman of a coalition that has lobbied to keep the Market Access Program.
Sunkist, a nonprofit group of citrus growers that took in $1 billion in gross sales in fiscal 2010, got $4 million from the government through the program. Wootton said that advertising helps offset the benefits that foreign growers get from government subsidies and tariffs. “With that brand, and that identity, we’re able to effectively overcome the price differential” with cheaper foreign-produced products, Wootton said.
This year, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) proposed a budget amendment that would have cut off the money for the program’s staff.
It never came up for a vote.
Quietly surviving
Other often-criticized programs have also survived without much debate. One of them, intended to clean up abandoned coal mines, sends millions every year to states that are finished cleaning up their highest-priority sites.
The Republican Study Committee has called for cutting this program. So did the bipartisan debt commission. So did Obama, starting in 2009.
“We cut $115 million from a program that pays states to clean up mines that have already been cleaned up,” Obama said the next year, as he laid out the reductions he planned in his budget.
It didn’t happen then. And it didn’t happen this year. The program, which state governments say they still need, was not altered by Congress.
Also unchanged: a program that pays cotton and peanut farmers to store their bales and bushels in warehouses. The idea is to let farmers keep their crop off the market while prices are low. The federal government will still budget $2 million a year, despite criticism from Obama and before him George W. Bush.
Not all of the budget’s immortals escaped serious cuts this year.
Congress eliminated $42 million for the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program, named for the longtime senator from West Virginia. It cut $10 million from the National Drug Intelligence Center, a facility in Johnstown, Pa., promoted by House titan John P. Murtha (D-Pa.). And it took more than half the federal funds from the Denali Commission, an agency created by long-serving senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
All three programs share one trait. Their champions in Congress — Byrd, Murtha and Stevens — all recently died.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Advisor to ex-NY comptroller gets prison sentence
Advisor to ex-NY comptroller gets prison sentence
Feb 17, 2011
Reuters
Henry "Hank" Morris, the chief political advisor to New York state's former comptroller, has been sentenced to one-and-a-third to four years in prison for "orchestrating" a pension kickback scheme, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said on Thursday.
This is the maximum sentence under the law, Schneiderman said of the wide-ranging corruption probe into how Morris exploited his ties to Democratic Comptroller Alan Hevesi to reap millions of dollars in fees paid by firms seeking to invest the state's $132.8 billion pension fund.
"Today's sentencing decision by the Court sends a strong message to New Yorkers that those who abuse positions of power to line their own pockets will be held accountable by this office, Schneiderman, who inherited the probe when he took up his current post in January, said in a statement.
Last November, Morris plead guilty to a felony, forfeited $19 million of the fees he was paid by investment firms and money managers, and was permanently banned from New York's securities industry. This is the first sentencing decision resulting from the investigation.
Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat who was the attorney general before he became governor in January, led the probe and netted eight guilty pleas...
Feb 17, 2011
Reuters
Henry "Hank" Morris, the chief political advisor to New York state's former comptroller, has been sentenced to one-and-a-third to four years in prison for "orchestrating" a pension kickback scheme, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said on Thursday.
This is the maximum sentence under the law, Schneiderman said of the wide-ranging corruption probe into how Morris exploited his ties to Democratic Comptroller Alan Hevesi to reap millions of dollars in fees paid by firms seeking to invest the state's $132.8 billion pension fund.
"Today's sentencing decision by the Court sends a strong message to New Yorkers that those who abuse positions of power to line their own pockets will be held accountable by this office, Schneiderman, who inherited the probe when he took up his current post in January, said in a statement.
Last November, Morris plead guilty to a felony, forfeited $19 million of the fees he was paid by investment firms and money managers, and was permanently banned from New York's securities industry. This is the first sentencing decision resulting from the investigation.
Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat who was the attorney general before he became governor in January, led the probe and netted eight guilty pleas...
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Workers toppled a dictator in Egypt, but might be silenced in Wisconsin
Workers toppled a dictator in Egypt, but might be silenced in Wisconsin
By Harold Meyerson
Washington Post
February 16, 2011
In Egypt, workers are having a revolutionary February. In the United States, by contrast, February is shaping up as the cruelest month workers have known in decades.
...But even as workers were helping topple the regime in Cairo, one state government in particular was moving to topple workers' organizations here in the United States. Last Friday, Scott Walker, Wisconsin's new Republican governor, proposed taking away most collective bargaining rights of public employees. Under his legislation, which has moved so swiftly through the newly Republican state legislature that it might come to a vote Thursday, the unions representing teachers, sanitation workers, doctors and nurses at public hospitals, and a host of other public employees, would lose the right to bargain over health coverage, pensions and other benefits. (To make his proposal more politically palatable, the governor exempted from his hit list the unions representing firefighters and police.) The only thing all other public-sector workers could bargain over would be their base wages, and given the fiscal restraints plaguing the states, that's hardly anything to bargain over at all.
ad_icon
You might think that Walker came to this extreme measure after negotiations with public-sector unions had reached an impasse. In fact, he hasn't held such discussions. "I don't have anything to negotiate," Walker told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week. To underscore just how accompli he considered his fait, he vowed to call in the National Guard if protesting workers walked off the job or disrupted state services...
By Harold Meyerson
Washington Post
February 16, 2011
In Egypt, workers are having a revolutionary February. In the United States, by contrast, February is shaping up as the cruelest month workers have known in decades.
...But even as workers were helping topple the regime in Cairo, one state government in particular was moving to topple workers' organizations here in the United States. Last Friday, Scott Walker, Wisconsin's new Republican governor, proposed taking away most collective bargaining rights of public employees. Under his legislation, which has moved so swiftly through the newly Republican state legislature that it might come to a vote Thursday, the unions representing teachers, sanitation workers, doctors and nurses at public hospitals, and a host of other public employees, would lose the right to bargain over health coverage, pensions and other benefits. (To make his proposal more politically palatable, the governor exempted from his hit list the unions representing firefighters and police.) The only thing all other public-sector workers could bargain over would be their base wages, and given the fiscal restraints plaguing the states, that's hardly anything to bargain over at all.
ad_icon
You might think that Walker came to this extreme measure after negotiations with public-sector unions had reached an impasse. In fact, he hasn't held such discussions. "I don't have anything to negotiate," Walker told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week. To underscore just how accompli he considered his fait, he vowed to call in the National Guard if protesting workers walked off the job or disrupted state services...
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Fresh conviction in Abramoff scandal: aide traded favors for World Series trip
Fresh conviction in Abramoff scandal: aide traded favors for World Series trip
Christian Science Monitor
By Warren Richey
February 10, 2011
A former congressional staff member was convicted on Thursday of charges that he accepted an all-expenses paid trip to the 2003 World Series in exchange for inserting amendments favorable to a company into the Federal Highway Bill.
Fraser Verrusio was found guilty of all three counts in his indictment following a 10-day trial in federal court in Washington, D.C.
The case is a spinoff from the investigation of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Mr. Verrusio’s conviction brings to 20 the number of lobbyists and public officials who have pleaded guilty or been convicted in the Abramoff scandal.
In addition to conspiring to accept an illegal gratuity and accepting that gratuity, Mr. Verrusio was convicted of failing to report the gifts on his financial disclosure statement...
Christian Science Monitor
By Warren Richey
February 10, 2011
A former congressional staff member was convicted on Thursday of charges that he accepted an all-expenses paid trip to the 2003 World Series in exchange for inserting amendments favorable to a company into the Federal Highway Bill.
Fraser Verrusio was found guilty of all three counts in his indictment following a 10-day trial in federal court in Washington, D.C.
The case is a spinoff from the investigation of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Mr. Verrusio’s conviction brings to 20 the number of lobbyists and public officials who have pleaded guilty or been convicted in the Abramoff scandal.
In addition to conspiring to accept an illegal gratuity and accepting that gratuity, Mr. Verrusio was convicted of failing to report the gifts on his financial disclosure statement...
Saturday, January 22, 2011
72 super PACs spent $83.7 million on election, financial disclosure reports show
Industry giving to GOP House leadership Washington Post
Jan. 21, 2011
The new House committee chairmen have in many cases received campaign donations from the industries their panels oversee.
72 super PACs spent $83.7 million on election, financial disclosure reports show
By T.W. Farnam
Washington Post
December 3, 2010
The newly created independent political groups known as super PACs, which raised and spent millions of dollars on last month's elections, drew much of their funding from private-equity partners and others in the financial industry, according to new financial disclosure reports.
The 72 super PACs, all formed this year, together spent $83.7 million on the election. The figures provide the best indication yet of the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions that opened the door for wealthy individuals and corporations to give unlimited contributions.
The financial disclosure reports also underscore the extent to which the flow of corporate money will be tied to political goals. Private-equity partners and hedge fund managers, for example, have a substantial stake in several issues before Congress, primarily the taxes they pay on their earnings.
ad_icon
"Super PACs provide a means for the super wealthy to have even more influence and an even greater voice in the political process," said Meredith McGehee, a lobbyist for the Campaign Legal Center, which advocates for tighter regulation of money in politics.
American Crossroads, a conservative super PAC that outspent its peers, pulled in six- and seven-figure donations from the financial industry. That included $500,000 from Anne Dias-Griffin, founder of the Aragon Global Management hedge fund, and her husband, Kenneth Griffin, founder of the Citadel Investment Group hedge fund.
Crossroads, which was founded with the support of Bush administration adviser Karl Rove, raised $70 million, much of it used to support 10 Republican Senate candidates and 30 Republican House candidates...
Corporate contributions have surged for new Republican leaders in House
By Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam
Washington Post
January 22, 2011
The new Republican leaders in the House have received millions of dollars in contributions from banks, health insurers and other major business interests, which are pressing for broad reversals of Democratic policies that affect corporations, according to disclosure records and interviews.
72 super PACs spent $83.7 million on election, financial disclosure reports show
*
New Republican lawmakers are hiring lobbyists, despite campaign rhetoric
*
Incoming GOP freshmen rapidly embracing big-money fundraisers
*
Campaign cash: Who's spending where in 2010
Much of that money flowed to the GOP chairmen overseeing banking, energy and other key committees - leaders who will play a central role in setting the House agenda over the next two years.
The impetus behind such largess is simple: Many companies and industry groups hope House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) and other Republicans will succeed in rolling back Democratic policies they find objectionable, including environmental and Wall Street regulations.
GOP lawmakers took their first step in that direction Wednesday by voting to repeal President Obama's health-care overhaul law. Major health-care firms and their employees gave Republican leaders at least $5 million over the past two years, including well over $2 million to Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.), according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data...
Petty Bickering Trumps Jobs Need as Republicans Vote to Repeal Health Care Reform
by Mike Hall
Jan 19, 2011
What do Republicans do with their first big chance as the U.S. House majority? Address the economy, create jobs? Nope. They vote to repeal health care reform. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka says the action “signals that they won’t let go of old grudges to do the work of the people.”
The nation is in its 20th straight month with unemployment above 9 percent. The electorate in November told lawmakers to “focus less on petty partisan bickering and more on jobs, jobs, jobs,” says AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
But in their first significant action since taking majority control of the U.S. House, Republicans chose bickering instead of jobs and threw a huge hunk of red meat to their right-wing backers today by voting (245-189) to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
The action came, although repeal has no chance of succeeding—the Senate will not take the measure up and President Obama has said he would not sign it...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)