It's All Talk

It's All Talk

I had a conversation last night with a bunch of adults in their 30s--and I was startled to hear remarks to the effect that the only real hope for fixing this country is revolution. I've been hearing remarks like this for the last few months; it isn't serious discussion, of course. (If they were seriously enough concerned, and there was more than just a few, we wouldn't have this idiot Congress and President.) But it does capture some of the frustration that a lot of Americans are beginning to have with how corrupt our system has become.

By corrupt, I don't mean, "supporting left-wing policies." I mean the way in which business interests have so completely captured control of Congress--including nearly all Democrats and many Republicans--that the concerns of ordinary Americans no longer matter. The unwillingness to crack down on illegal immigration, both at the border and at hiring time, is perhaps the most blatant example.

If the national Republican Party really wanted to win this next election, they would be paying attention to the rage, and telling the special interests that bought them off about health care reform, about immigration, and about pork barrel spending, to go take a hike. But the national Republican Party has its ears so deep in the trough (next to the Democrats) that there seems to be no way to get their attention, except perhaps by converting both of these pigs into bacon.

Governor Schwarzenegger's Veto Message

Governor Schwarzenegger's Veto Message

I can't decide whether to be disappointed at the vulgarity, or impressed with the subtlety. Governor Schwarzenegger was very disappointed with a bill put on his desk--and he vetoed it. And his veto message, if you read the first letter of each of the seven lines, spells out a message. A message that I am too polite to repeat.



Coincidence, his staff says. Yeah, right. And that's why he picked the phrase, "kicks the can down the alley?"

The Perfect Storm of Political Correctness Run Amok

The Perfect Storm of Political Correctness Run Amok

The only thing missing would be if this guy was vegetarian, too! From the October 5, 2009 Daily Mail:

A former judge is facing life in prison after being charged with sexually abusing male inmates in exchange for leniency.

Respected circuit judge Herman Thomas, who was once the Democratic Party’s choice to be the first black federal judge in south Alabama, is accused of bringing inmates to his office and spanking them with a paddle.

His trial for charges of sodomy, kidnapping, sex abuse, extortion, assault and ethics violations is set to begin today.

The 48-year-old insists he is innocent and claims he was trying to mentor the inmates.

I don't think "mentor" is the verb that he wants.

Thomas’s defence lawyer Robert ‘Cowboy Bob’ Clark has branded the accusers ‘lying felons’ who are trying to wreck the career of ‘a prestigious member of the Bar for over 20 years.’

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a leading civil rights group, has defended Thomas and claims race is behind his prosecution.

Thomas and his attorney blame the charges on politicians who don't like him.

‘There is no doubt that people assisted these inmates in telling these lies on me,’ Thomas said in April.

...

Chief Assistant District Attorney Nicki Patterson said authorities began looking at Thomas after he changed a jail sentence in 2006 for his cousin, former Mobile County school commissioner David Thomas, even though the case was being handled by another judge.

Other cases that Thomas had taken over from other judges without their approval soon surfaced, she said.

Some inmates in those cases described being checked out of the jail for meetings with Thomas in his car or in his private office in the county courthouse.

And there is physical evidence as well!

Should I Be Amused Or Angry?

Should I Be Amused Or Angry?

The ASPCA is asking its members to support HR 3501, Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (“HAPPY”) Act, "which would amend U.S. tax code to allow qualifying pet care expenses, including veterinary care, to be tax-deductible."

Making an expense tax-deductible, because it reduces overall tax revenues, is effectively a subsidy for a particular action. The deduction for dependents is a subsidy to having kids. The deduction for home mortgage interest is a subsidy for homeowners. The deduction for medical expenses and medical insurance exceeding 7.5% of your adjusted gross income is a subsidy for those who have serious health problems, or who have to pay for their own health insurance.

You can argue about whether each of these is necessary, or appropriate. In some ideal world, we wouldn't have any of these subsidies written into the tax code. I'm not keen on adding more tax deductions or credits into the system, except as an alternative to something worse. That's why I grudgingly support a tax credit to help lower income people afford health insurance--it's more efficient than a general subsidy to a government health insurance plan, because it is precisely targeted.

But a tax deduction for pet care? This is a frivolous subsidy at a time when our economy is in danger of collapse from insanely large deficits. I suspect that the goal is to curry favor with high income voters who call their pets "fur children," and spend thousands of dollars a year taking care of these substitutes for real children.

UPDATE: Dave Hardy points out that the proposed deduction is actually far better than the deduction for medical care or medical insurance, because your pet's expenses don't have to exceed 7.5% AGI.

I Am Really Disappointed; I Am Not Surprised

I Am Really Disappointed; I Am Not Surprised

One of the members of the California legislature was apparently caught on tape talking about his sexual conquests--including a lobbyist for Sempra, an electric utility that his committee regulates. (This source indicates that her name is Heidi Dejong Barsuglia.) The conversation he was having with another guy was just before a committee hearing started, and his microphone was on, and he didn't realize it. The reporter indicated that other members of the legislature say that this guy goes on quite frequently about his sexual conquests, and it's difficult to get him to shut up about it.

Even worse: he's a pro-family Republican.

Maybe sex with the lobbyist doesn't influence how he votes on issues of importance to Sempra. So does that mean that the lobbyist (described as 19 years younger than him, and married) is having sex with this old, fat, unattractive guy because she thinks she's getting something done for Sempra? If so, he's lying to her. If not, it must be his sparkling intellect and wit that makes both of them commit adultery.

I'm beginning to think that a lot of people go into politics because it gives them access to money, power, and sex that they otherwise wouldn't be able to get. And too often, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats aren't ashamed when they get caught.

UPDATE: That was fast. He has resigned.

flag@whitehouse.gov

flag@whitehouse.gov

You may be aware that the White House wants people spreading misleading or false reports about their health insurance proposal to be reported to flag@whitehouse.gov. This all smells of Nixon's "Enemies List," and the efforts some years back by the FDA to discredit opponents of fluoridating water. (I think the opponents of fluoridation were in the wrong, but the government should persuade, not demonize opponents.)

It turns out that it may be not just a bad thing, but actually unlawful. My friend David Hardy, an attorney who spent some years working in the belly of the beast (Interior Department subsection) says that there's a specific statute that makes this unlawful:

5 US Code §552a(e)(7) commands that any Federal agency

"(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;"

Persons posting to the web or sending emails are exercising First Amendment rights. I can't see how gathering this information is expressly authorized by statute, nor within the scope of an LE activity. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

...

I'd say there are glaring Privacy Act violations here. And the penalties, per §552a(i) include fines of up to $5,000, not only for gathering forbidden data, but for disclosing it or maintaining an undisclosed system.

One of my readers (a supporter of Obamacare) thinks that I am unfairly characterizing flag@whitehouse.gov--that the White House isn't making lists, but just keeping track of what mischaracterizations of the health care plan are out there, so that they can fight the errors. Hey, maybe that's true. But if in 2004, the White House had a email address where you were encouraged to report people making false claims about the Iraq War, would the same crowd have assumed that there were no bad motives or actions that might result?

Living High On The Hog

Living High On The Hog

You recall a few months back that Nancy Pelosi, Empress of San Francisco, was complaining that the Air Force couldn't provide her a Gulfstream V to fly back and forth between DC and San Francisco. There were other jets available--but they don't have enough bling for her.

Well, the problem is solved. From the August 7, 2009 Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- Congress plans to spend $550 million to buy eight jets, a substantial upgrade to the fleet used by federal officials at a time when lawmakers have criticized the use of corporate jets by companies receiving taxpayer funds.

The purchases will help accommodate growing travel demand by congressional officials. The planes augment a fleet of about two dozen passenger jets maintained by the Air Force for lawmakers, administration officials and military chiefs to fly on government trips in the U.S. and abroad.

The congressional shopping list goes beyond what the Air Force had initially requested as part of its annual appropriations. The Pentagon sought to buy one Gulfstream V and one business-class equivalent of a Boeing 737 to replace aging planes. The Defense Department also asked to buy two additional 737s that were being leased.

...

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the Department of Defense didn't request the additional planes and doesn't need them. "We ask for what we need and only what we need," he told reporters Wednesday. "We've always frowned upon earmarks and additives that are above and beyond what we ask for."

Congress turned harshly critical of companies that fly executives on private jets in the weeks following the government bailout of banks and auto makers last year. General Motors, Chrysler LLC and Citigroup Inc. were among those caught in the cross hairs of angry lawmakers.

Fortunately, our economy is in fine shape; we're not running deficits of a size that endangers national productivity; and everyone who wants a job has one. Right?

UPDATE: Make sure that you read this August 8, 2009 Wall Street Journal article about members of Congress going snorkeling on the Great Barrier Reef as part of investigating (and causing) global warming. Oh yes, many brought along their wives. Look, I do think that there might be times when a member of Congress might actually get more insight from seeing something than merely reading about it--but junkets like this are a little too obviously vacations at taxpayer expense:

WASHINGTON -- When 10 members of Congress wanted to study climate change, they did more than just dip their toes into the subject: They went diving and snorkeling at the Great Barrier Reef. They also rode a cable car through the Australian rain forest, visited a penguin rookery and flew to the South Pole.

The 11-day trip -- with six spouses traveling along as well -- took place over New Year's 2008. Details are only now coming to light as part of a Wall Street Journal analysis piecing together the specifics of the excursion.

...

The South Pole trip, led by Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.), ranks among the priciest. The lawmakers reported a cost to taxpayers of $103,000.

That figure, however, doesn't include the actual flying, because the trip used the Air Force planes, not commercial carriers. Flight costs would lift the total tab to more than $500,000, based on Defense Department figures for aircraft per-hour operating costs.

Lawmakers say the trip offered them a valuable chance to learn about global warming and to monitor how federal funds are spent. "The trip we made was more valuable than 100 hearings," said Rep. Baird, its leader. "Are there members of Congress who take trips somewhat recreationally? Perhaps. Is this what this trip was about? Absolutely not."

The knowledge gained is "profoundly important to how I do this job," added Mr. Baird, who at the time headed the House Science Committee's subcommittee on research and science education.

What A Shocker! Environmentalist Looking Out For Green!

What A Shocker! Environmentalist Looking Out For Green!

The color of money, in this case. From the July 15, 2009 Washington Times:

Rep. Ed Perlmutter of Colorado inserted a provision into the recently passed House climate change bill that would drum up business for "green" banks, such as the one he has invested in and his family and a political donor helped found in San Francisco.

The bill calls on bank regulators to promote green banking and says federal dollars should be used to support energy-efficient home improvements at government-funded housing projects.

Mr. Perlmutter, a two-term Democrat, has two investments in the 3-year-old New Resource Bank, which calls itself the nation's first green bank. Among other environmentally conscious banking products, the bank offers home equity loans for consumers to make their homes more energy efficient, in addition to construction loans for green builders.

A Perlmutter spokeswoman stressed that the bill provisions benefit any bank that offers qualifying products.

Of course, being the first bank in that sector wouldn't give it an unfair advantage or new banks set up to take advantage of the Perlmutter provision, wouldn't it?

When the Framers wrote our Constitution, one of the rather impressive innovations was to pay members of Congress a salary--something that Parliament did not have for several decades. This meant that you didn't need to be a wealthy man to be part of the political process. In practice, most members of Congress today have to be rich to get elected. But you would think, being wealthy, they wouldn't feel the need to engage in this sort of questionable behavior.

Do These People Have No Shame?

Do These People Have No Shame?

From July 1, 2009 Washington Post/MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - Sen. Daniel K. Inouye's staff contacted federal regulators last fall to ask about the bailout application of an ailing Hawaii bank that he had helped to establish and where he has invested the bulk of his personal wealth.

The bank, Central Pacific Financial, was an unlikely candidate for a program designed by the Treasury Department to bolster healthy banks. The firm's losses were depleting its capital reserves. Its primary regulator, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., already had decided that it didn't meet the criteria for receiving a favorable recommendation and had forwarded the application to a council that reviewed marginal cases, according to agency documents.

Two weeks after the inquiry from Inouye's office, Central Pacific announced that the Treasury would inject $135 million.

As I pointed out with respect to a Republican member of Congress a couple of years ago, you can somewhat understand why someone who is scraping by to pay his bills might be tempted to abuse his political position. But when you are already wealthy enough that you don't need to work--and in the case of Senator Inouye, you are so old that you can't possibly spend the money that you already have before you die--why takes actions that at least look corrupt, and probably are?

And there are so many of these of late: Sen. Conyers' wife, Monica Conyers, who resigned from the Detroit City Council after her conviction, and whose husband used his position to assist in the corruption. And the list of these crooks (overwhelmingly Democrats) is so long and disappointing. You know, if Americans cared about corruption by public officials, the Democrats would have something to worry about at the next election. But pretty clearly, most Americans don't let this bug them much.

Yet Another Reason San Francisco Should Be Expelled From the Union

Yet Another Reason San Francisco Should Be Expelled From the Union

This is something so awful that if a novelist wrote it, you would put the book down in disgust, because it would be so unbelievable. From the June 22, 2009 Los Angeles Times:

San Francisco D.A.'s program trained illegal immigrants for jobs they couldn't legally hold

As she runs for state attorney general, prosecutor Kamala Harris faces questions over a program that trained illegal immigrant drug felons for jobs, kept them out of jail and expunged their records.

The assault on Amanda Kiefer at dusk in San Francisco's posh Pacific Heights was extraordinary enough for its cruelty.

A stranger, later identified as Alexander Izaguirre, snatched her purse and hopped into an SUV, police say. The driver sped forward to run Kiefer down. Terrified, she leaped onto the hood and saw Izaguirre and the driver laughing. The driver slammed on the brakes, propelling Kiefer to the pavement. Her skull fractured. Blood oozed from her ear.

Only after the July 2008 attack did Kiefer learn of the crime's political ramifications. Izaguirre, police told her, was an illegal immigrant who had pleaded guilty four months earlier to a drug felony for selling cocaine in the seedy Tenderloin area.

He had avoided prison when he was picked for a jobs program run by San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris, now a candidate for California's top law enforcement post. In effect, Harris' office had been allowing Izaguirre and other illegal immigrants to stay out of prison by training them for jobs they cannot legally hold.

The program, Back on Track, is a centerpiece of Harris' campaign for state attorney general. Until questioned by The Times about the Izaguirre case, Harris, a Democrat, had never publicly acknowledged that the program included illegal immigrants. In interviews last week, she and her office offered inconsistent explanations.

The fact is that San Francisco's DA can do stuff like this without worry of the voters getting upset. They like this sort of thing. It makes them feel so progressive.

Intimidation By Members of Congress

Intimidation By Members of Congress

What would you call it if members of Congress sitting on a committee regulating your industry told you to change your position, or face regulatory changes designed to cause your business trouble?



I'm not sure of the exact legal status of a threat like this (and what might be implied to qualify as a threat), but what distinguishes this from the extortion that the Mafia does, except that the Mafia's actions are a bit more direct? You will also notice that a number of the Democrats who played significant roles in creating the housing crisis signed this letter.

UPDATE: Here's Frey's very thoughtful response. I'm not sure that I understand some of his suggestions, much less agree with them, but it really does show the intellectual and classiness gap between Congresscritters-as-Mafioso and Mr. Frey.

Another Crooked Wall Street Financier In Trouble

Another Crooked Wall Street Financier In Trouble

From May 7, 2009 Associated Press:

NEW YORK (AP) — Former top Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu pleaded guilty in federal court Thursday to charges he cheated investors out of at least $20 million in a massive Ponzi scheme.
The 58-year-old Hsu (SHOO) pleaded guilty to 10 counts of wire and mail fraud before U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
"I knew what I was doing was illegal," Hsu told the judge.
His lawyer, Alan Seidler, said outside court afterwards that his client was likely to testify on his own behalf at a trial on four counts of violating federal campaign-finance laws. Hsu is accused of violating those laws by making hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to more than 50 politicians.
"He's like a groupie. He just likes the political process," Seidler said, adding that Hsu was adamant that he never made a political contribution expecting something in return. Prosecutors said he made contributions to political candidates in the names of others.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine Lemire told Marrero that the government will seek to prove that Hsu made political donations "to fuel" the Ponzi scheme and pressured victims of his fraud to contribute to political candidates.

... 

Seidler said Hsu considered Hillary Rodham Clinton his biggest prize among political candidates.
"That was his star," Seidler said of Clinton, who returned more than $800,000 to donors whose contributions were linked to Hsu.
Hsu was accused of raising more than $1.2 million for Clinton and other Democratic candidates. His donations became an embarrassment for Clinton's presidential campaign.

Why is that Democrats are always getting caught running Ponzi schemes? (Yes, I'm thinking of Bernie Madoff, among others.) Is it just that Democrats are weak on long-term thinking? Social Security, for example, is a type of well-run Ponzi scheme--but one of these days, it's going to take our whole economy down.

Why Nepotism Is A Bad Thing

Why Nepotism Is A Bad Thing

My recollection is that the word "nepotism" to refer to giving special advantages to relatives or friends derives from the Latin word for "nephew," since a great many Popes put their "nephews" (actually, illegitimate sons) into important positions in the Church. Of course, sometimes, your nephew is good at what he does, and being related to you has nothing to do with it, right?

Imagine if these no-bid Pentagon contracts were going to the nephew of a Republican Congressman with substantial sway over defense spending. From the May 5, 2009 Washington Post:

Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
Robert Murtha said he is not at liberty to discuss in detail what his company does, but for four years it has subsisted on defense contracts, according to records and interviews. He said Murtech's 17 employees "provide necessary logistical support" to Pentagon testing programs that focus on detecting chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, "and that's about as far as I feel comfortable going." Giving more details could provide important clues to terrorist plotters, he said.

Murtha said he does not advertise being the nephew of John Murtha and considers it "unfortunate" that some will unfairly assume Murtech received its federal contracts because of his uncle's influence at the Pentagon.
"If we're not doing our job well, we wouldn't be doing our job," he said. "I'm successful at the work I do because of the skill sets I have. . . . You don't know how good someone is unless you work with them."

There is so much that is so dirty in Washington (and not just on the Democratic side, either). But as long as the dirt involves Democrats, most of the news media simply don't care.

It must be nice to have friends in high places.

Thank Heavens: I Thought He Was Going To Blame It All On The Jews

Thank Heavens: I Thought He Was Going To Blame It All On The Jews

From the March 27, 2009 Financial Times:

Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Thursday blamed the global economic crisis on “white people with blue eyes” and said it was wrong that black and indigenous people should pay for white people’s mistakes.
Speaking in Brasília at a joint press conference with Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, Mr Lula da Silva told reporters: “This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.”

Yeah, all several hundred million "white people with blue eyes" did this to them. And no "white people with blue eyes" were injured by this.

Nancy Pelosi, Leader of the People's Party

Nancy Pelosi, Leader of the People's Party

The Speaker of the House started to get use of a military aircraft after 9/11, and I can't argue with the reasons: the Speaker is pretty high in the line of succession if a catastrophic attack wiped out a big chunk of our executive branch. But what started out as a reasonable thing has gotten more and more out of control. First Pelosi was upset that the plane that had been used by the previous Speaker (who lived much closer to DC) had to stop and refuel--so she wanted a plane that could fly nonstop. Okay, I can somewhat go along with that. Landing and taking off are the high risk parts of any flight, and it does slow them down. But this meant that the Air Force was flying Pelosi and staff crosscountry in a 200 seat military 737. Talk about a carbon footprint!

But it gets more outrageous--and if a Republican Speaker of the House behaved like this, it would be on the evening news broadcasts every night for weeks. From the March 11, 2009 New York Post:

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has gone from frequent flier to jet-aircraft connoisseur, with aides berating military officials to get the best planes, e-mails revealed yesterday.

Pelosi, who clashed with the military to get nonstop service when she flies home to California with police protection on government planes, revealed a particular fondness for Gulfstream's sleek G-5 - a plane glamorized in Hollywood films and rap videos.
"It is my understanding there are no G-5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable . . . The speaker will want to know where the planes are," a Pelosi aide wrote in an angry e-mail to the military.

Now, I understand Pelosi's preference on this. I am probably the only conservative blogger who has actually traveled in a G-5, owned by the company I worked for at the time. (I would guess that many liberal bloggers own their own, or have friends that do.) It is far nicer than a 737. But perhaps she needs to understand that there are sacrifices required in government service--and having to live with what is effectively your own private 737 is one of those sacrifices.

Dilbert Speaks Truth To Stupidity

Dilbert Speaks Truth To Stupidity

One of the things that I like about Dilbert--besides its humor and thoroughgoing ability to explain the deranged foolishness of working for a large corporation--is how skilfully it foretells future news stories. Like this strip from February 25, 2009:



And then Michelle Malkin links to this CBS news story:

Educap is a multibillion-dollar student loan charity run by CEO Catherine Reynolds. As CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported Monday night, Educap is under investigation by the IRS and Congress for alleged abuse of its tax-exempt status because it charges high interest on charitable student loans, and provides lavish perks with millions in compensation for Reynolds and her husband.

CBS News has obtained exclusive details of what may have been the biggest charity perk: use of Educap's $31 million luxury jet, which costs thousands of dollars an hour to operate.

Investigators say for five years, Reynolds jetted friends, family and luminaries to faraway and exotic destinations that sometimes had little to do with the charity's mission.

CBS News has learned that high-profile names on the Educap flight list include CIA Director Leon Panetta, former Sens. Tom Daschle and Ted Stevens, former FBI Director William Sessions and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.

According to flight records, Panetta and Daschle, while not in public office, accompanied Educap's Catherine Reynolds on flights to private business meetings not related to the charity.

Reynolds also took Daschle and his wife on a tour with seven stops in Europe and the Middle East.

Ted Stevens, his wife and daughter were along on dozens of flights, hitting destinations like Vail and Aspen, Colo., before the senator was convicted on corruption charges last fall.

And records show Reynolds took Chicago's Daley and his wife on 58 flights including ones to Turkey, Asia and Sweden.

Watchdog Stephen Burd says money spent on the jet comes off the backs of students, who have Educap loans costing up to three times more than government loans.

Dilbert nailed it. Hypocrites.

The Brazenness of High Level Corruption Sickens Me

The Brazenness of High Level Corruption Sickens Me

And that these guys operate with impunity is the obvious implication when you see them funding major political events. From ABC News:

Offshore banking experts say that the fraud charges this week against accused financial scammer R. Allen Stanford have been a long time coming.
"There's no surprise at all," said Washington lawyer and IRS consultant Jack Blum. "This man has been on law enforcement's radar screen for the better part of 10 years."
But the SEC didn't move forward until this week, after two former Stanford Financial whistleblowers filed an alleged lawsuit, which revealed how the bank lied about too-good-to-be-true certificates of deposit.
"The problem was the published returns that many advisors use to present to clients and prospects," said former Stanford Group employee Mark Tidwell, "that now we knew that information was incorrect."
...
Federal authorities tell ABC News that the FBI and others have been investigating whether Stanford was involved in laundering drug money for Mexico's notorious Gulf Cartel.
Authorities tell ABC News that as part of the investigation, which has been ongoing since last year, Mexican authorities detained one of Stanford's private planes. According to officials, checks found inside the plane were believed to be connected to the Gulf cartel, reputed to be Mexico's most violent gang. Authorities say Stanford could potentially face criminal charges of money laundering and bribery of foreign officials.
...
A video posted on the firm's web-site shows Stanford, now sought by U.S. Marshals, being hugged by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and praised by former President Bill Clinton for helping to finance a convention-related forum and party put on by the National Democratic Institute.
"I would like to thank the Stanford Financial Group for helping to underwrite this," Clinton said to the crowd at the event.
Stanford Financial was listed as the "lead benefactor" for the gathering, and Stanford was permitted to address the audience of several hundred.
...
The SEC charged yesterday that Stanford was running a fraudulent investment scheme that may have bilked customers out of as much as $8 billion.
Stanford's whereabouts are unknown and U.S. Marshals say they are searching for him.
Over the last decade, Stanford has spent more than $7 million on lobbyists and campaign contributions to Washington politics in both parties, although the vast majority of the money has gone to Democrats.

Michelle Malkin points out that while the Federal Election Commission didn't find anything actually criminal about Obama's unusually low mortgage rate deal on the house with the strange Rezko involvement, it is pretty clear that rank has its privileges. Politicians get special deals because they are in a position to reward their friends.

Yes, the Republicans have crooked influence peddlers like Jack Abramoff, but the sheer volume of Democratic crooks popping out of the woodwork right now is so huge that it is impossible to keep track of all of them. And regardless of party, the corrupting influence of big money on legislation makes it all the more critical that we start electing members of Congress at random from the voter rolls, just to remove the influence of money on elections.

There's only problem with that: that would require amending the U.S. Constitution. Which would require both House and Senate to pass such an amendment by 2/3 vote. Which would bring the orgy of influence peddling (more about that in the next post, about carbon dioxide) to end. Which means that only when a new Constitutional Convention is held in the ashes of the current disorder, will that happen.

Maybe This Is Just A Coincidence

Maybe This Is Just A Coincidence

But what a fascinating coincidence it is! From the October 18, 2008 Wall Street Journal:

New York Sen. Charles Schumer's public criticism of IndyMac Bancorp last summer, which critics say helped spark a run on deposits that took under the troubled thrift, came while IndyMac's assets were being eyed by investors who are major donors to the Democratic Senate campaign committee the senator chairs.
Sen. Schumer, chairman of a Senate banking subcommittee, was criticized at the time for publicly raising questions about the bank's solvency and regulators' oversight of it. What wasn't known then was that a group of potential investors, led by Los Angeles-based Oaktree Capital Management LP, had been inside the bank looking over its books. They had already decided not to invest in the bank, but were scouting assets that might become available if the bank failed and was taken over by the government.
Sen. Schumer's office said recently he didn't know anything about Oaktree's possible interest in IndyMac until after the bank failed. Oaktree Chairman Howard Marks said he never talked to the senator about IndyMac.

Oh yeah, I believe that! Some years ago, when I was writing Firing Back!, Microsoft Word's spellchecker didn't recognize "Schumer" as a word, and suggested an alternative choice: "Schemer." And who said software couldn't be wise?

Unfortunately, the next paragraph of the column just makes me shake my head:

The bank's demise in June now is almost a footnote in the financial-sector problems that have exploded in succeeding months. Still, Sen. Schumer's fund-raising involvement with investors looking over the bank underscores how Democrats' entanglements with the financial industry will make it hard for them to score political points over the market upheavals in the remaining weeks of the election.

Well, I suppose if Americans who read the Wall Street Journal were comparable to the number who watch ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN, they might have a point here.

What is just amazing is how many progressives will vote Democratic this year in an attempt to destroy crony capitalism--and either don't care, or don't realize that when it comes to crony capitalism, the elephants are inconsistent amateurs compared to the donkeys.

Is There Something in the Water There?

Is There Something in the Water There?

From the October 13, 2008 ABC News The Blotter:

West Palm Beach Congressman Tim Mahoney (D-FL), whose predecessor resigned in the wake of a sex scandal, agreed to a $121,000 payment to a former mistress who worked on his staff and was threatening to sue him, according to current and former members of his staff who have been briefed on the settlement, which involved Mahoney and his campaign committee.
Mahoney, who is married, also promised the woman, Patricia Allen, a $50,000 a year job for two years at the agency that handles his campaign advertising, the staffers said.
A Mahoney spokesperson would not answer questions about the alleged affair or the settlement, but said Allen resigned of her own accord and "has not received any special payment from campaign funds."
Senior Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), the chair of the Democratic Caucus, have been working with Mahoney to keep the matter from hurting his re-election campaign, the Mahoney staffers said.
...

Mahoney was elected two years ago following the abrupt resignation of his disgraced predecessor, Republican Mark Foley, whose lewd internet messages to teenage boys and Congressional pages created a national outrage.
The affair between Mahoney and Allen began, according to the current and former staffers, in 2006 when Mahoney was campaigning for Congress against Foley, promising "a world that is safer, more moral."

I would like to think whatever Republican is running against Mahoney would now have a slamdunk election--but I have learned that the harsh reality is that corrupt and immoral behavior seldom impairs the ability of Democrats to get elected, or re-elected, because Democrats aren't bothered by corrupt and immoral behavior from their representatives. It only seems to bother Republican voters. It does mean that Republicans running for public office have to be squeaky clean--while Democrats merely need to avoid committing rape or murder on videotape.

Buckley's Famous Aphorism Returns

Buckley's Famous Aphorism Returns

William Buckley once said "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty." Rasmussen Reports tells us:

If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 59% of voters would like to throw them all out and start over again. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 17% would vote to keep the current legislators in office.
Today, just 23% have even a little confidence in the ability of Congress to deal with the nation’s economic problems and only 24% believe most Members of Congress understand legislation before they vote on it.
Last week, the House of Representatives initially rejected a financial bailout bill proposed by the Bush Administration. Later, after the Senate added a number of items that some call “pork” and others call “sweeteners,” the measure eventually passed. While the bill survived Washington, it did so at a time when just 30% of voters favored it and 45% were opposed.

More important, with respect to those 2000 names:

Only half (49%) believe that the current Congress is better than individuals selected at random from the phone book. Thirty-three percent (33%) believe a randomly selected group of Americans could do a better job and 19% are not sure (see crosstabs).

I would have to say that the 49% may be correct in the sense of "well informed" but not in the sense of morally "better." What a random sample of Americans knows might be deficient, compared to Congress (although perhaps not by the huge margin that the elites would like to believe). But I find it very easy to believe that a random sample of Americans would be less corrupted by the influence of K Street lobbyists than the current pack of jackasses.

I really wish that the popular revulsion at Congressional incompetence and stupidity would cause a massive rejection of the current political class next month. But that just isn't going to happen.