Ethics and principles are pesky things.  They never go away, and can rear up and bite you when you least expect it.

Such should be the case for Mike Bettiga, former President of the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board who has been asked by Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights to testify at a hearing on Tuesday, December 6 on the Express Scripts/Medco Merger.

Mr. Bettiga, a pharmacist by trade, is now Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer at Shopko Stores, a retail chain headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin.  Shopko has 135 stores in thirteen northern tier states and California, and a robust retail pharmacy division.

Express Scripts and Medco Health Solutions are two of the country’s largest pharmacy benefit managers – companies that administer prescription drugs benefits for insurers, large employers, government agencies and unions.  The two recently proposed a merger which is currently under review by our government.  Proponents claim the merger would provide economies of scale, which, in turn, would lower consumer costs.

Opponents, which include some drug store chains, have used trendy Occupy Wall Street-lite catch phrases such as “windfall profits,” “corporate control,” and the dreaded “wasteful mail order spending problem” to bolster their anti-merger case.

(more…)

From the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight:

ATF_10-04-11_Holder_memo_docs

Senator Chuck Grassley and Congressman Darrell Issa today said that Attorney General Eric Holder received at least five weekly memos beginning in July 2010, including four weeks in a row, describing the ill-advised strategy known as Operation Fast and Furious. The memos were to Holder from Michael Walther, the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center.

The Attorney General told Issa during a House Judiciary Committee in May 2011 that he had just learned of Fast and Furious a few weeks before. Yet, on January 31, in a previously scheduled meeting, Grassley personally handed him two letters about Fast and Furious. Grassley and Issa said they find it very troubling that Holder actually knew of Operation Fast and Furious much earlier, and in greater detail than he ever let on.

The memos specifically said that the straw buyers were “responsible for the purchase of 1500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug trafficking cartels.”

(more…)

From The New York Times:

greenjobs_gw_03

A $500 million green jobs program at the Department of Labor has so far provided only 15 percent of current participants with jobs, leading the agency’s inspector general to recommend that the bulk of the money be returned to the Treasury.

The program, which was funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aims to find employment for almost 80,000 people by providing grants for labor exchange and job training projects. With those grants expiring over the next 15 months, IG officials concluded that the program would fail to come close to that target.

(more…)

From The Hill:

A series of emails written in October 2010 between Jason Weinstein, the deputy assistant attorney general of DOJ’s criminal division, and James Trusty, the acting chief of the DOJ’s organized crime and gang section, reveals a fluid knowledge of the operation.

“It’s not going to be any big surprise that a bunch of US guns are being used in MX [Mexico], so I’m not sure how much grief we get for ‘guns walking,’ ” wrote Trusty to Weinstein. “It may be more like, ‘Finally, they’re going after people who sent guns down there … ‘ ”

(more…)

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) have focused on the Justice Department in their investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, in which U.S. officials deliberately sold American guns to Mexican criminals that were later used to kill a U.S. border agent.

Questions have arisen about the involvement of Attorney General Eric Holder, as new evidence has arisen that Justice Department officials may have wanted not only to target Mexican druglords but also to create anecdotal evidence to support tighter gun control rules.

A look back at the early days of the Obama administration suggests that responsibility for Operation Fast and Furious. may go even higher.

Source: AP http://tinyurl.com/cj4lz3

In the spring of 2009, both President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blamed American gun-running for violence in Mexico’s drug wars.

On March 25, 2009, for example, Clinton stated in Mexico City: “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.” She also announced new efforts to stop gun-running.

(more…)

Over the July Fourth weekend, there was a major development in the Fast and Furious investigation when BATF head Ken Melson made a surprise July 4th appearance before Darrel Issa and Chuck Grassley’s congressional committee put together to investigate Fast and Furious.

That operation involved BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) agents allowing straw purchasers to buy over two thousand automatic weapons and then smuggle them illegally across the border to Mexican Drug cartels. The operation led to a spike in violence in Mexico, the killing in Arizona of a U.S. Border Patrol agent last December and a possible attempted cover up by the BATF and the US Department of Justice.

BATF head Melson was placed in a particularly bad light by the earlier testimony of agents, some of whom depicted him watching the illegal gun deals go down on closed circuit TV and literally rubbing his hands with glee. Melson, a temporary appointee, was set up to fall on his sword for Fast and Furious and was apparently under a great deal of pressure from the Obama Administration to ‘resign’. Instead, he resisted and said he wanted to testify before the investigative committee, but in order to do that, he needed clearance from the Department of Justice.

In a particularly revolting display of partisan horse trading and disregard for justice, the ranking Senate Democrat on the committee, Patrick Leahy made a deal with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley to allow access to certain documents and allow Melson and other witnesses to testify – in exchange for releasing holds on three Obama Administration DOJ nominees.

(more…)

Will Senator Chuck Grassley look at THIS evidence about the massive fraud in Pigford? His office number is 202-224-3744. Please leave a comment and let us know what Grassley’s office says to you.

I want you to get a good look at attorney Al Pires, the mastermind behind four different settlements ostensibly created to aid black, women, Hispanic and Native American farmers. I’ve been telling you about the billions of dollars in fraud the settlements actually represent for months and Al Pires is an absolutely central figure in them. The settlements were his idea and he was the lead attorney who recruited other lawyers and helped create the structure of the consent decree that made it easy for people who claimed to have “attempted to farm” to collect $50,000 checks.

But Al Pires is an elusive figure, for reasons I think will be obvious as soon as you watch the video. My Pigford investigative team has known for months that getting Al Pires to talk on the record would be a dream interview and crucial to understanding the scam that’s been perpetrated on the taxpayers and the real farmers for years now. John Stossel first exposed Pires in his great Freeloaders special a few weeks ago and when he called me earlier this week and offered me the opportunity to question Al Pires myself, I realized that it represented a very rare opportunity.

So we should all thank John Stossel for giving us this chance to see and hear the man that President Obama, USDA Sec. Tom Vilsack, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus have invested so much political capital in. Meet Al Pires.

Even though this case goes back to 1999, please bear in mind that Al Pires and “Dr.” John Boyd are currently on the road right now recruiting women “farmers”. In other words, Al Pires still represents a clear and present danger to our nation’s treasury and to the interest of racial harmony. As the interview makes clear, Al Pires is a race baiter of the first order and he needs to foment a race war as a form of misdirection while he lines his own pockets.

(more…)

There are number of factors that could lead to the Pigford scandal becoming a political issue in Iowa, of all places. The state’s demographics – about 95% Caucasian – might make this seem unlikely but it’s very interesting how many of the major political players in the Pigford scandal are from the heartland state.

1) One of the major Senate proponents of Pigford is Republican Chuck Grassley

2) The major political opponent of Pigford is Republican representative Steve King

3) USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, a Democrat, is also the former governor of Iowa who also served in the state legislature with Steve King. Vilsack has made Pigford a priority in his administration and has opposed any efforts to investigate fraud in the settlement.

4) Vilsack was also the fall guy in the forced resignation of Shirley Sherrod; Mrs. Sherrod has stated publicly that she believes the White House was behind her firing because she was told this by USDA Undersecretary Cheryl Cook. Vilsack has denied White House involvement. The White House and the USDA both had good reasons for not wanting publicity about Pigford and Mrs. Sherrod; she, her husband Charles and the New Communities farm that she helped manage were by far the largest single recipients of Pigford money, getting over $13 million.

5) Vilsack’s USDA also did an end run around the court decision and created their own expedited process to give money to women and Hispanic farmers — and significantly, women and Hispanics who claim to have attempted to farm. This “attempted to farm” distinction is exactly what led to significant fraud in Pigford.

6) Sec. Vilsack and Sen. Grassley have both praised “Dr.” John Boyd and have advocated using Boyd for outreach in the Pigford, women and Hispanic farmers cases. For more on John Boyd watch the segment from my documentary Pigford Blues.

(more…)

It’s one the most troublesome aspects of the Pigford settlement – how could thousands (or tens of thousands) of people knowingly commit fraud to receive a $50,000 check that they weren’t entitled to?

We have the answer in the form of undercover audio that was recorded at a meeting that taught potential Pigford claimants exactly how to commit fraud. The meeting was conducted by a man named Thomas Burrell, the head of the Black Farmers Agricultural Association, Inc. At CPAC in February, we held a press conference where we released a two hour unedited section of audio. Now I’m releasing the first in a series of shorter excerpts that take you through some of the key points. I

There are two parts to the full answer of how such massive fraud could come to be ; one practical, the other ethical. Practically speaking, they were coached. They were told precisely what to say in order for their claim to pass muster with the adjudicator. Who told them? People like who conducted meetings for years throughout the country.

The ethical question is the more troubling part. I believe that thousands of basically honest people were induced into committing fraud by people like Mr. Burrell. How? As you will hear in this excerpt from undercover audio that we recorded earlier this year, Thomas Burrell uses a powerful combination of persuasive techniques including literally invoking the name of God, telling his audience that their ancestors were owed the money and the technique of “social proof”, which makes collecting a $50,000 check seem like something many people have done. Stir this together with the basic human failing of greed and frankly it’s a wonder that many more people do not file fraudulent claim.

Here is the first excerpt:

(more…)

I’ve often said that the Pigford scandal isn’t a partisan issue. This is about fraud and corruption and while there are many Democrats involved, one of the biggest promoters of Pigford has been Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. Grassley was the Senate sponsor of the Pigford Claims Recovery Act that extended Pigford to another 70,000+ claimants.

Even more troubling than Senator Grassley’s support of the Pigford Legislation, however, has been his explicit support of “Dr.” John Boyd.

Boyd is head of the National Black Farmers Assocuation, a group that he runs out of his house in Virginia. Boyd claims to represent ‘the farmers’ but in fact, he’s personally profited from the Pigford settlement to the tune of over $1,000,000. Boyd aggressively plays the race card against his critics, including Andrew Breitbart and this site.

In 2009, attorney Rose Sanders – a major advocate of Pigford, mind you –  said this about “Dr.” John Boyd…

Less than two years ago, I attended meetings by John Boyd where he and his attorneys were soliciting contracts from hundreds of eligible and ineligible claimants before the Pigford II legislation was passed in Congress. These contracts obligated citizens to pay 1/3 of their recovery to John Boyd’s attorneys plus expenses. Expenses had to be paid even if the claimant was unsuccessful. I objected to these outrageous contracts.

For more on Boyd, you can watch this clip from Pigford Blues about Boyd’s Institute and Doctorate and you can also read this post that shows how Boyd manipulates the press.

I contacted the office of Republican Senator Chuck Grassley today about his support for John Boyd. Here’s the response I got from Grassley’s press secretary, Beth Levine.

Senator Grassley’s support for Pigford II isn’t about John Boyd, it’s about the thousands of black farmers who were unable to have their cases heard before a neutral arbiter. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the courts and the Congress have all said that these farmers deserve to have their cases heard based on the merits. Pigford II simply enables the farmers, or those who attempted to farm, to plead their case in front of a neutral party and be judged on the merits. The law was also specifically written with extra protections to help ensure that fraud is kept out of the program. Those changes have been made to the settlement agreement that will enhance the Department’s ability to fight fraud including requiring adjudicators to be a truly neutral party; allowing that neutral adjudicator to ask the claimant for additional documentation if he or she suspects any fraud; requiring the claimants’ attorneys to certify that there is evidentiary support for the claims; and requiring the Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the Department’s internal controls and audit the process in adjudicating the claims. (emphasis mine.)

This is all standard runaround that Pigford II somehow has higher standards – and it’s not true.

(more…)

Obviously, the team here at the The Bigs has spent a lot of time covering the Pigford scandal and we plan to give you a lot more coverage in the coming weeks. But I’ve noticed something that’s come up a number of times in comments and I’d like to take the chance to address it; the idea that the Pigford case is an unwinnable fight that’s over and done with.

This just isn’t true. Pigford is a battle we can win and the consequences are potentially huge.

First, let’s address the issue of money. Between the first and second Pigford settlement about $2.5 billion dollars has been allocated. About half of that money has been sent out as payments for Pigford I and it’s highly unlikely that any of that money is recoverable.  That’s the bad news.

On the other hand, the billion and a half dollars that has been misallocated by President Obama for the Pigford II settlement has not been sent out yet. In fact no checks are expected to be written until 2012 at the earliest. That means that there’s still time to get an investigation going that will stop those checks – most of which we believe our investigation will show are scheduled to go to people who never farmed a day in their life —  from ever being cut.

One thing that the advocates of Pigford absolutely do not want is an investigation. In fact as Georgia Democratic Congressman Sanford Bishop told a group of farmers, “If they investigate Pigford, they’ll shut this thing down.” You can also see this same attitude coming from the panicked responses of the “professional Pigford class”; those people like Thomas Burrell and Dr. John Boyd who run organizations that profit from the continuation of Pigford fraud.

Just as important, I still believe that there’s a chance to get justice for the actual farmers who face discrimination. However I think that this will only happen by first shutting down Pigford fraud and getting an investigation going.

So, how do we help get investigation started in Congress?

(more…)

One of the chief responsibilities of the Congress is the provide oversight of the executive branch — a responsibility that the Democrat Congress has punted. The president nominated Donald Berwick to head the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid, a proponent of rationing for the poor and elderly. Not only did the Congress not hold a single hearing about Berwick’s support for a government-run health care system, they never voted on his nomination. Berwick now heads an agency bigger than the Department of Defense without so much as a question being asked about his qualifications and extreme views.

Berkwick’s support for the imposition of a British-style health care system complete with its rationing regime is clear. “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care–the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open,” Berwick said in a June 2009 interview with Biotechnology Healthcare.

In an interview last June, Dr. Berwick said, “NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and — importantly — knowledge-building system.” He added that NICE has “developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn.” Moments later, the interviewer asked, “So you are saying that the federal CER [Comparative Effectiveness Research] agency should get involved in cost determinations?” Berwick replied, “You can say, ‘Well, we shouldn’t even look.’ But that would be irrational. The social budget is limited.” NICE is the government agency in Britain that rations care on a daily basis. Professor Mike Rawlins, the chairman the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) who said: “The question is not whether care is rationed but how.”

(more…)

There is on YouTube an hilarious video, drawn from C-SPAN2, of Max Baucus on the Senate floor denouncing his Republican colleagues and even more emphatically the Republican leadership for squelching attempts at what he piously describes as bipartisan healthcare reform.

The senior Senator from Montana has obviously had a snootful; he is having considerable difficulty in managing the English language; and he is evidently as mad as a wet hen.

I do not blame Baucus – neither for the excessive imbibing nor for being angry. He is now in a pickle. He was the point man for the Democrats’ healthcare initiative in the Senate, and for perfectly predicable reasons his constituents out in Montana are none too happy with him.

(more…)