I think it is the mystery of a debt ceiling that has me so puzzled. I know, for instance, what a debt ceiling would mean for me and that once it is reached, I’m back to Ramen Noodles and tap water. Of course, with honest management, ahead of time, I boil up them Noodles once or twice a week and I maybe avoid hitting that Ceiling and being forced to sip at that swill coming out the faucet. Theoretics, of course, of course…
So, in such a scenario, a Debt Ceiling is an honest and real concept. There is a Limit, and to break through that Limit means Consequences. But we’re discussing the Federal Government, where Consequences are as real as the Tooth Fairy, long as you’re keeping your junk off Twitter…
The Debt Ceiling has been “raised” nearly seventy-five times in the last fifty years, and has been raised ten times in the last ten. This means that seventy-five times in the last fifty years, the Government saw that they did not have enough money to do their Business and, instead of adjusting their spending or coming up with honest ways to make money, they just decide to raise the level of spending allowance they have. Why make changes when all you have to do is say you’re allowed to spend more money?
This Debt Ceiling, this borrowing, counts for upward of fifty percent of Government Spending. Okay. This concept makes sense Or, at least, more sense. Everyone has credit cards to increase their spending allowance (well, not everyone, I know, and I know I am not the only one staying away from those slices of devilry…), so that more things can be purchased at times when the wallet is a little thinner. And part of that agreement is that you pay back onto that credit card so that the debt is managed, if not always manageable. Most credit cards, they have a limit of spending allowance granted: i.e. a debt ceiling. You know what it takes for the Debt Ceiling for you and me to be raised? Consistent and honest repayment. Steady positive interaction. Commitment to the deal we signed on for.
Hmm…
Switching channels, why is Barry showing his face on this? Why is he announcing that a deal has been agreed upon between the Dems and the Repubs? This ball is not on his court just yet. He just needs to put his face out there because, hey, guess what’s around the corner…? Which is the same reason why he nixed an earlier proposal that was pointed at raising that ceiling so that negotiations could be continued on how to lower all this spending and spending. Because the timeline for anything suggested clashes with his Re-Election Tour coming up. It’s the same for all these Politicians, of course; once that Big Red Box starts looming on the Calendar, there is actual caution practiced, because no one wants mud on their shoes right before the Dance…
No one wants to buckle down either.
The Debt Ceiling is 14.29 TRILLION DOLLARS. You heard that, right? And it needs to be raised. An added stipulation to the current agreement is a trillion in cuts. Now, even talking about these numbers becomes only concept talk, something beyond imagination for the you’s and me’s. How is it we get to a point where we are spending that much money that no one has and have to ask for more? Is that not indicative of a serious problem?
But, really, this isn’t all about the money. Maybe even more so, it is about power and stepping on the other guy and not backing down. It is about Party Politics, rather than America, and that should come as no surprise. Here is one idea that will never real a reality: a wage freeze for any elected politician in Congress, Senate, or the White House till there is no deficit. Because, really, what are paying them for? If I go into work tomorrow and I can’t get the job done, guess where I will be? If I spend all my money, guess what I will get? Maybe it is necessary time that the People we put in place to steer the boat are held to actual Standards, are held Responsible for the actions that truly blight our Country. Maybe more worry needs to be paid to getting the Job done, and nevermind the sexting or junk-shots or infidelities. Maybe it’s time to hold our Leaders to their Word?
Tag Archive: congress
Further Musings…
Of course, through the day, there was no talk of this Congressional Power Strain going on, of course not, not here, safe in the Corn Belt with a huge pan of fried chicken, spiraled honey ham — how could anyone even dare think such thoughts?
But I checked in when I got back to the hotel and was completely unsurprised that there had been no resolve. I mean, one, there’s Saturday Morning Cartoons, so nothing gets done till nearly noon, then lunch, and the afternoon was so hot… And a new question occurs:
A debt ceiling implies that there is a debt; a debt implies that we owe someone some money. Who, exactly? Please clarify. Please.
Along this line of thinking was the thought that we give away way too much money. Who are we giving this money to? What are these recipients doing for us? Are they, in taking this money, doing anything that leads to a less dependance on charities and hand-outs?
There is a thought out there that charitable financial givings should be lessened, at least by ten percent. Ten percent? Barely a dink in the bucket. Closer to fifty percent, I think, and at the least a twenty-five percent decrease. This may seriously disrupt the economies of these countries, but it may also be a catalyst needed to get these countries moving on their own? Wow, why would we want that?
Would they argue? “No, hey, that just isn’t enough free money, we need more…” Would the bleeding hearts feel we are being less American if we gave other people less in order to take care of Americans? Are we obligated to save the world, at the expense of ourselves?
This Scrooge thinking led in different paths, as anything in my head tends to. One thought was on the paychecks of these Senators and Congressmen. I would have to do some digging – something I am not set ready to do at the moment – but didn’t they just give themselves a raise within the recent decade? And, yes, this pay raise is not responsible for any deficit, but what was the percentage of that raise? Why would the same percentage not given to the rest of Americans, along with that free medical coverage? Just a thought…
I really think, in this day and age, there should be a better way for the American Public to give input on anything that goes on in those Sacred Halls. You know that no one actually gives honest answers to pollsters, and any news media is only going to focus on the one side of the political spectrum that is paying their bills. There is no clarity.
There was something else I was thinking, but I’m tired now and The Goonies is on, and we have a few hours of peace. Sometimes that’s harder to come by than national financial security…
I usually don’t listen to NPR. Too stuffy in their liberal views – the preppy college kid who acts as though they are really giving back because they notice the poor slums and the starving children on the other side of the world, hell, they’ll even go talk to them. As with any all politically-slanted media, it only portrays one aspect of the going-ons in the world and only tries to appeal to one corner of listeners. I do, however, really dig that chick with the English accent. I don’t know what she is talking about, I just get all mushy at the sound of her Britified, whispery voice – thanks, Mel…
But in the country roads of Indiana, when nothing else but country music even remotely cackles on the car radio, there wasn’t too much choice to listen and pay attention. On the way to the surprise birthday celebration of an elderized lady, with the Missus having nodded off, I had nothing else to focus on. And the topic of the week is the troubles Congress is having with rasing the debt ceiling. There is no explanation on what it all is about, and I have been avoiding news, on both the national and local fronts, for the past few months as I re-assimilate. But it is a national debt ceiling, pretty easy to figure out. The talk is about who in the country, which citizens will be short-changed because there isn’t enough money to go around. Some little old lady in Iowa. A firefighter in Texas. Border patrol guards in Arizona. The regular people. No mention of politicians at all, without consideration that one of their paychecks will cover for three of the people’s needs. That would be ludicrous, of course.
Congress is at a stalemate, a filibuster, as the Republicans will not pass the proposals the Democrats put on the table in reference to a higher debt ceiling. There is not clear declaration on who the debt is to – taxpayers, other nationalities, corporations? – which I think should be an important consideration. Is it that big a deal if we owe it back to our own pockets? What are other countries going to do it we decide to not pay on their schedule? What do the Republicans want in order to pass the movement? What necessities are in the air that make such a raising needed? Because, usually, I see a lot of politicians asking for money for issues that should have been handled differently: if funds were not mis-used, then more funds would not need to be beggared for. Of course, of course.
And those gray-suited bastards are hard at work over the weekend, trying to hammer out a deal that both parties can agree to, while Barry is on the golf course saying how the Republicans are against him, are against us all.
I bring this up because, listening to all this talk about how our economy hangs in the balance, how our way of life depends on this higher debt ceiling (which, if you consider it, is the NEW American Way of Life: Live on Credit and Put the Receipts in a Shoebox), I didn’t hear any talk about how much money we are handing out to the Middle East so that they can rebuild. I didn’t hear a word on how much money we give away, based on someone else’s decisions, to countries that have learned it is easier for them to scratch by on hand-outs than it is to knuckle down and be responsible for themselves. Nothing said about the debts we owe to countries that have reneged on their own promises and debts.
The United States has focused too much, for too long, on being a global presence, and it is time to reign that back in and take care of our own yard. As a parental unit, the United States would have lost custody long ago, and may have gotten lucky with supervised visitation rights, but as a national force, it is left to self-implode, along with its citizenry.
Here’s a thought: every move a Congressman or Senator makes is recorded and reported to those citizens he or she answers to. If it is a decision those voters dislike, that can be made immediately. Screw this writing the Congressman a letter that gets read and laughed at by some underpaid aide; there should be a forum made available that shows every move there in Washington and what the general public thinks of it. Maybe if the opinions and wishes of the public were honestly known, the politicians would move in a direction that truly focuses on this country, or give reasons why such decisions are unwise.
After today’s shin-dig, I want to read more on this debt ceiling and I will follow this up as soon as I can. With more blind opinions, name-calling, and ingratuity, of course.
What the hell happened -
545 people vs. 300 million people
This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be – read it!!
The article below is completely neutral …not anti republican or democrat.
Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel has hit the nail
directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must
assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day.
It’s a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!
545 vs. 300,000,000
EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
545 PEOPLE–By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits….. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red ..
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power..
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees…
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it……… Is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren’t so darned true.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened? Can you spell ‘politicians?’
In a piece of irresponsible journalism passed off as Op-Ed, Maureen Dowd puts forth the argument that Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during the Presidential Address Wednesday night, 9/9/09, is nothing but racist-fueled fear that has nothing to do with the Address itself, but a desperate attempt for American Bigots to keep their clenching fists on an America which is growing and spreading beyond the confines of color. Ms. Dowd pooped out her piece Saturday the 12th in the pages of The New York Times.
And she is a good writer. Don’t get me wrong. Unlike me, she is a professional in her field and gets paid for it. She did put in the piece facts on Wilson and the South that, put in the right place, supports her claim that Wilson did not shout out out of emotional frustration to what Obama was mouthing, but only out of his deep-rooted hatred for the idea that a black man is in the White House.
How is this even an issue? How does this line of thinking actually consider the issues on the table? Is it nothing but a clouding of the mind, a distraction put out there to keep people from demanding truth and transparency? How many times has this race issue been pulled out without any follow-through on the facts being questioned?
They are, in fact, two different issues. Whether Joe Wilson puts on clean sheets and burns badly-made crosses, whether the majority of the GOP resents a black man as Commander-in-Chief, these ideas have nothing to do with whether Obama is being entirely truthful in the presentation of his Plan. These ideas have nothing to do whether or not Wilson considered Obama’s words to be blatant lies. No matter how much it is argued, racial tension has nothing to do with the questionable validity of Obama’s health plan. To insist it does is irresponsible and criminaly misleading, especially for a professional journalist. No problem if you want to swear you seen these guys throwing homemade bombs in the basement windows of churchs, that is part of that Free Speech thing. But there needs to be actual responsibility taken by journalists, Right and Left alike, who have the power to influence public thought with their words. Expression of personal opinion is part of our American Life, but it should not be used to detract from actual facts, especially when such an issue is at the forefront of every American’s concern.
As exhaustive as Joe’s two words would seem, it seems important to look at what might prompt him to such an emotional outburst which is completely disrespectful to the Office of the President (though it seems that booing, from either side, has always been permissable).
1. The Democrats did veto a proposed amendment to a plan which would tighten verification processes for citizenship in hospital care. That is a fact. However, it was the Democrats who shot it down, not Obama himself.
a. the same could be said of preventing abortions from being covered under the plan as well, another amendment was put on the table by Republicans and shot down by Democrats.
2. Obama has been in works to quicken citizenship processes, which could give truth to his statement because, by 2013, when the Plan would be in effect, illegal aliens would no longer be illegal aliens.
a. which raises the question as to how wording is so important. Might there be agreement if the term “illegal aliens” is struck from the Plan and replaced with “those who’ve entered the country illegally“?
The debate on this issue has been running full-force now for months. Obama is right: the status quo is not acceptable. But he is wrong in forcing his sole plan down on top of the American people. His plan is not the only idea on the table, a fact that he ignores to mention. And he does not consider the ideas and how they might be implemented into his own ideas. Instead, he makes his plan and himself indivisible. Those who oppose his plan oppose him, not exactly the way Democracy works. He declares that his door is always open and he will listen to “a serious set of proposals” but, it seems, that means very little in the concept of consideration.
Like all Americans – Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, black, white, or any other label that is needed – I am concerned with how health care reform is going to affect me and how health care is in dire need for actual reform. But I don’t see much getting accomplished. Obama shoots down those that don’t agree with his plan and those who look towards its realistic flaws as points that need ironed out as opponents that are only trying to undermine him. What consideration has he given to the ideas which have contrasted with his ideas? How can he bemoan the attitudes of his opposition if he portrays those same attitudes?
He has advertised his plan without giving clear, understandable explanations of its workings. He’s used quotes and numbers out of context as scare tactics to overwhelm those that depend on health coverage. He touts his “no time to accept the status quo” as though that is the only alternative to his plan, a very misleading implication. He wants his Plan passed this fall without clear understanding, but it doesn’t take effect for four years; if it is so wonderful, why wait so long? Trying to get a clear view of what his plan is is not an easy thing; the rhetoric put out on numerous websites make it all sound very attractive, but this is the government: how is the fine print going to bend us over? where is that fine print? He claims that already-established health insurance coverage will not suffer in competition with a government insurance program (or, if it does suffer, it deservedly does so because of a better plan running it out of business), but does he consider how current health insurance will be negatively affected while doling out benefits? Is his plan going to step up to plate halfway through chemotherapy treatment because the initial insurance had no choice but to fold? He claims “cutting waste in Medicare” will help fund the Plan with hundreds of millions of dollars while at the same time saying Medicare recipients will not lose any benefits. If there is so much waste there, why wait to deal with that? Why have they waited this long? Obama claims that no additional taxes will be charged to fund his Plan and it will not raise our deficit one iota, but that is also untrue, as shown by numerous agencies which actually deal with the sort of thing.
Is it a terrible thing, government-run health insurance? I don’t know. The present model is a poor thing, for sure, but why hasn’t there been stricter reigns put on health insurance companies which do not act in the interests of the paying American people? Again, why wait four years to do something about that? Why has such abuse, both in the private sector and in government-run programs such as Medicare, been allowed to continue for so long if their acts are criminal? Is the government program going to be accepted everywhere, unlike present insurance companies, which are accepted only at certain providers, decisions made outside of the insurance and within state government agencies? Why is the health insurance market, already controlled by government in who gets to sell what where, so restrictive if Obama thinks an open market would be a great idea? Again, why wait?
What was my point here?
Ah, yes, Ms. Dowd’s irresponsibility in her article. While vehement in calling Joe a racist, she does nothing to show that Joe was wrong in calling Barry a liar. She does nothing to defend Obama’s truthfullness, pushing forth her idea of racism as a blanket to cover the real issue. She may be a hot-looking mamma, but her journalistic irresponsibility only serves to take attention away from actual issues and the pursuit of truth, thereby harming those Americans who need to know facts more than they need to listen to racial opinion. Whether Joe is a card-carrying Brother of the Klan and stores pre-made noose knots in his briefcase, does that clearly prove Obama is presenting the whole truth, and the whole Plan, to the American People? Or is the presentation of Wilson’s racial handicap necessary to pull attention away from actual facts and the misreprestation of those facts?
I stand behind Op-Ed presentations. It represents various ways to look at issues, it represents different views on topics that might have been overlooked. But it should not be used in place of real journalism, nor should it be touted as truth. The inclusion of facts does not displace the danger of Ms. Dowd’s opinions, but only strengthens it in the minds of readers who are not given any indication as to what are hard facts and what are ideas out of her pretty, little head. That is more damaging than any outburst in an already-stained public setting.
Barry’s health care speech is about to start here. Why am I watching? Why has it taken twenty minutes for the guy to get to the podium? And did Mrs. Barry get a look of jealousy in her eyes when Barry kissed Hilary’s cheek? (I think so, and I think Mrs. Barry holds a sour look for everything unless it is connected to Barry). I could be watching End of Days.
I haven’t been watching the issues surrounding health care reform over these past couple months. School and work and Kaleb being down here for the summer has distracted me from politics. There just seems so little time in the day to get into all these things. But what I have caught is how little talk there actually is about health care reform. It seems mostly about influencing health insurance with a government-run insurance program. This is supposed to lead to affordable prices for those without health insurance or for those whose health insurance costs too much.
I’m confused. Why is there no attempt to reform the health care industry? Hospitals? Doctors? The people who actually dictate the costs of medical care? But all he is talking about is insurance. I don’t understand.
Maybe regulation of the health care industry should be what is considered. Maybe who’s friends with who should be considered. Are doctors and hospitals more aligned with Democrats, while insurance companies are predominately Republican? Is who’s in charge looking out for the wallets of the interests of those who support them, while taking a chunk against the opposition? Can he go to a commercial break? I need a cigarette.
He’s outlining his “plan“…
Gee, ideals that sound great, but haven’t we heard ideals before? What happened to that schikt?
He sounds more like he’s hosting an infomercial. And he just said “…how Members of this Congress gets affordable insurance…” I thought they got affordable health insurance because we paid for it?
Great ploy, pulling McCain’s name into it, giving him credit for an idea.
Pelosi looked like she wanted to attack someone there, who balked at Barry’s claim that illegal immigrants would not be covered. She has a pearl necklace. Does someone actually slip it to her anymore? How drunk is that poor bastard?
Sit down, you bastards. Let Barry talk. Applause gets in the way of actually getting listening, and keeps this speech going on and on.
oooh, how we pay for this plan…
He’s invoking Ted Kennedy’s nobleness in defense of health insurance reform?
How do you require health insurance out of all citizens, like auto insurance for all drivers, but then say some citizens will get that insurance for free? Isn’t that already introducing inequality? Is that beyond the welfare insurance given out for irresponsible parents who use the baby-making factory to gain free, unworked income?
Asied from my quips, I don’t have much to say about the speech. I understand the ideals he spits out but are ideals ever the truths that reach the table, from either Democrats or Republicans, Conservatives or Liberals? But, if this “plan” is so easily understood in idealized form, why is its actuality so difficult to comprehend? Why doesn’t Barry send every American a five-page letter and say this is my plan and have no contradictions within or within any legalese? It’s easy to give out ideals with bright eyes and applause facing you, but what about truths behind it all? If what is spoken is not what is on paper, whether because of contradictions, because of buried conditions, because of confused legal jargon, then it’s all bullshit. It’s either one way or the other.
Haven’t we already faced “unforeseen circumstances” that broke promises and oaths, that have made lies out of ideals? Do we need more of that? Is it too much to ask for honesty from politicians, from all politicians, that all cards be laid out on the table in a manner which does not necessitate a law degree to interpret?
There’s a lot of news bouncing through the air: the progress of this government-run health care plan based on models that “seem to run well” in countries half the size of Texas, the omission of Fannie and Freddie from the newest federal financial regulations because they are not that impactive in federal finances, and a new health bill gets ready to be marked with the big O that will give the FDA unprecidented control over the tobacco industry without outright banning cigarettes, which is going to turn around and raise the price of smokes one way or the other – getting to be a shame when it’s cheaper to smoke drugs than it is to smoke a Camel.
Oh, and apparently Barry likes toasty nuts in his custard. Than you CNN for that wonderful coverage!
And this is all important news, facts that the public should be aware about – well, maybe not about Barry and his daughters going out for custard, though the way that press coverage for that event was arranged is telling in its own way – and there are dozens more newstories which should be paid attention to.
Amidst all this important news, one instance of what kind of thug now sits in that big, white house is being overlooked. The firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin because Barry “does not have the fullest confidence” in Walpin. Which may be perhaps well-founded, but the swiftness in which Barry pulled Walpin out of office and how he over-stepped regulations in how dismissals are to be handled (regulations he signed just a year ago) is indicative of the need to silence Walpin quickly. For some reason…
The letter to Congress that Barry delivered gave no concrete reason for why Walpin should be fired, beyond that loss of confidence, and the thirty day notice of intent was not observed. What could Walpin have done to set the O to such action to swiftly?
Hmm? His job? Uncovering misuse of government funds for personal use? Investigating how government-funded social programs are ran and bringing to light possible fraud in those appointed to run those programs?
Walpin most recently uncovered evidence against Kevin Johnson, current mayor of Sacramento and some ex-basketball player. Apparently – allegedly – KJ used the money intended for Americorps programs to have personal services done instead. Petty things, perhaps, but that’s where it all starts, isn’t it?
Does Kevin Johnson’s political support of Obama have anything to do with Walpin’s swift dismissal? KJ has agreed to pay back half of the federal funds, which could be appropriate; I’m sure he let some money slip by into its proper place. So, KJ gets a slap on the wrist and Walpin gets an unexplained termination?
Sounds like good government to me.
The Sacramento U.S. Attorney was not happy with how Walpin conducted the investigation there. Apparently, Walpin’s employment history as Inspector General is lined with oddities such as this. Um… the man investigates fraud of government servants and that is going to be liked by those servants? Does anybody like someone nosing around when they know they been fucking around?
This investigation occurred in 2008, not last week. That Sacramento U.S. Attorney’s office was informed of the possibility of the fraud at that time, but they wanted Walpin’s office to supply more evidence before they pursued the matter themselves. That sounds like they preferred to have Walpin do the digging so they didn’t get their hands dirty, especially when such a high-profile individual is running for Mayor…
If you look at who’s doing the talking, you get a different image of Walpin. Throughout his career, he has uncovered the misuse of millions of dollars. That is fact, on record. That is his job. Unfortunately, the people that get investigated don’t much like that, or like how Walpin conducts his investigations – meaning they don’t like the guy told on them?
Barry claims that Walpin’s dismissal is not politically-fueled, that the man has long been considered for removal (for finding out who’s wasting money we keep giving them?). Is anyone looking into who is behind Americorps, who benefits from Americorps, and what their connection to Barry is, either now he wears the big hat or when he was in Chicago? KJ was a definite Obama supporter, and many of the other Americorps officials who got nailed under Walpin’s investigations are sure to be as toasty as Barry’s nuts with Walpin getting the hammer.
So, the bottom line, coming out of the White House, is: when investigating Obama’s friends who might be guilty of stealing America’s moneys, the course of action is to look the other way? Is that what the message is? You’re not allowed to hurt the feelings of Barry’s buddies when they get caught ripping off the nation?
I’ll have to keep an eye on this story. Its ramifications run deeper than just KJ’s sparkling-clean car.
