The Washington Post has completed an extensive study of earmarks–the process of slipping pet spending projects into bills–for all 535 members of Congress and has concluded that Rep. Nancy Pelosi added $50 million in earmarks for a light-rail project that runs near a four-story commercial building she and her husband own.

The Post says the revelation was uncovered by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster bestseller, Throw Them All Out:

Over the past decade, the House minority leader helped secure $50 million in earmarks toward a light-rail project that provides direct access to San Francisco’s Union Square and Chinatown for neighborhoods south of Market Street. Pelosi’s husband owns a four-story commercial building blocks from Union Square. These earmarks were reported in the book “Throw Them All Out.” A Pelosi spokesman said the project was requested by community leaders and that the new stations on the line will be farther away from the building than those on the existing line.

In response, Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s spokesperson, Drew Hammill, had this to say:

(more…)

Borrowing a page from Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s investigation of how elected officials funnel taxpayer dollars to projects that increase the value of properties they own, the Washington Post has conducted a study revealing that 33 members of Congress earmarked more than $300 million for projects within two miles of land they own.

After analyzing the holdings of all 535 members of Congress and comparing them to their earmarks for pet projects since 2008, the Washington Post found numerous eye-opening instances of potential self-enrichment at taxpayers’ expense, including:

• Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): obtained a $900,000 earmark to resurface roads where he and his daughter own two homes.  “I didn’t say, ‘Do the street that I live on,” Rep. Thompson protested when the Washington Post confronted him.  “The earmark went to the county.  It had no designation on it whatsoever, and that was it.”
• Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD): secured approximately $4.5 million for an interstate interchange that leads to Rep. Bartlett’s home, his 104-acre farm, and rental properties that earn him $150,000 annually.  “He was being an advocate for what was presented to him as the highest priority,” the congressman’s press secretary Lisa Wright said.  “Coincidentally, this was around two miles from his farm.”
• Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX): bagged $665,000 in taxpayer funds to expand a road 600 feet away from his family’s food processing plant, H&H Foods.  “It helps everybody,” Rep. Hinojosa told the Washington Post.  “The only way it made sense to handle this tremendous population growth and avoid problems for the school buses that go through that intersection was to widen it.”
• Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA): scored $750,000 for a new bridge three blocks away from a 7,000-square-foot building he and his wife own as well as Columbia Basin Paper & Supply, a janitorial supply company he previously owned that is now run by his brother.  “It never crossed my mind,” Rep. Hastings told the Washington Post.  “Every business in Pasco will benefit by that.”
• Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MA): landed a $187,000 earmark to replenish a shoreline 90 miles away from his home district near a beach that, coincidentally, he and his wife own two condominiums by that generate $15,000 in rental income.  Rep. Ruppersberger said questioning the proximity of his properties to the project was “ridiculous.”  “That’s a stretch to say that thing’s going to benefit me.”
• Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): secured $6.3 million to replenish a beach 900 feet away from a $142,900 cottage he owns.  “It’s absurd to suggest that this benefits me,” Kingston protested to the reporters.  “The beach doesn’t improve the real estate of a house, unless it’s on the beach.  The only thing that changes in value is the beachfront property.”
• Rep. John W. Olver (D-MA): obtained $5.1 million in earmarks to restructure a road 209 feet from Rep. Olver’s 15-acre home and several adjoining properties he and his wife own.  “I had no monetary interest whatsoever in this project,” Rep. Olver said.  “I had nothing to with the design.  I was never notified of any of the hearings.  I had no involvement whatsoever.”
• Rep. Candice S. Miller (R-MI): obtained a $486,000 earmark that helped add a 14-foot bike lane within walking distance of her house.  “People earmark for all kinds of things,” Rep. Miller said when asked about the project.  “I’m pretty proud of this; I think I did what my people wanted.  Should I have told them, ‘We can never have this bike path complete because I happen to live by one section of it’?  They would have thrown me out of office.”
• Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY): secured $7 million in earmarks, a portion of which went to overhaul streets around the corner from a bank where he is director emeritus and owns a $1-$5 million stake in the bank’s holding company and also narrowed the street he lives on to slow traffic.  “Congressman Rogers sees no conflict of interest in helping local community leaders achieve their goals for growth,” the congressman’s chief of staff Michael R. Higdon told the Washington Post.

The Washington Post report also concluded that 16 members of Congress directed taxpayer dollars to “companies, colleges, or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards.”

The practice of earmarks continues to be a source of angst for conservatives and citizens concerned with out-of-control federal spending.  In 2010, a record high 11,230 earmarks accounted for $32 billion in federal spending.

The California solar company, Solyndra, heralded by the Obama administration as a prime example of how the Recovery Act created new jobs while promoting his vision of renewable energy, is closing their doors. Just over a year ago, Obama himself spoke at the facility, praising it as “a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism.” Once a beacon of solar light in the progressive green jobs agenda, Solyndra had received a $535 million federal loan with the help of newly minted energy secretary, Steven Chu, only to find themselves staring down bankruptcy and the release of more than 1,100 workers.

Lying within that massive federal loan was a number of sub-awards to other vendors, 40 payments of which were greater than $25,000 each. The largest sub-award went to another administration favorite, CH2M Hill, to the tune of $9.6 million for their construction engineering services. The company is a $6.3 billion consulting, engineering, and construction firm, and shares some similarities to the failed Solyndra. In fact, CH2M used the nearly $10 million sub-award to design Solyndra’s solar manufacturing plant in Fremont, California. Besides that amount, CH2M is also a major beneficiary of the stimulus, having been awarded four of the top ten contracts from stimulus funding last summer – to the tune of $1.2 billion. As of this April, the company boasts of $1.6 billion in contracts from the Recovery Act.

Perhaps even more apparent is another similarity to the Solyndra company – CH2M Hill’s decline in employment. Reports of layoffs at CH2M began in January when KEPR-TV announced that 1,350 layoffs were coming in September due to the end of stimulus funding. The company recently organized a job fair for those affected by these layoffs, and an additional 1,000 layoffs at the contractor’s Hanford reservation. The job fair comes exactly one year after it was revealed that the company was inflating jobs reports by using a metric known as ‘lives touched’.

How did companies such as Solyndra and CH2M Hill become such lucky recipients of taxpayer money through the stimulus?

(more…)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) unwittingly highlighted the corruption inherent in congressional earmarks today, in an op-ed published in the Chicago Tribune.

Calling for Congress to “raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires,” Schakowsky quoted a constituent who supports her:

“Our country is not really broke,” said Cynthia Carranza, who directs a food pantry in Niles. Carranza has watched the increase in hungry people at her food pantry door even as government support for her program is slashed. “We’re an incredibly rich and prosperous nation. But our wealth is skewed to a very few fortunate at the top. We’re not broken, just twisted.”

Carranza’s support for government redistribution of wealth is no surprise. She may complain about the rich, but she has benefited richly from federal largesse: Carranza’s food pantry was the recipient of a $250,000 earmark requested by Schakowsky for FY 2011 in the run-up to last year’s congressional election.

Schakowsky laments that “government support” for the Niles Township Food Pantry has been “slashed,” but she certainly knows that is not the whole truth.

Schakowsky slipped the earmark request into a transportation, housing and urban development appropriations bill loaded with earmarks by other representatives. (The same bill was used by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to direct $1 million to the National Council of La Raza for “Capitalization of a Revolving Loan Fund to be Used for Nationwide Community Development Activities.”)

(more…)

The reality doesn’t match up to the Governor Parnell’s claims. The number of oil companies filing with the Alaska Department of Revenue has doubled indicating that competition has indeed increased. Alaska has the second most business friendly tax set-up — up two spots since the passage of ACES. Additionally, a report from Governor Parnell’s Department of Revenue indicated that 2009 yielded a record high in oil jobs. Even more recently, the newest employment numbers from Alaska show that oil job numbers were higher in January 2011 than in January 2010, indicating that jobs are growing at the seasonal level. Parnell argues that state revenues are in jeopardy, but it is estimated that his proposal would reduce revenues by $100-200 million. Governor Parnell is right on other issues, but the numbers tell a different story than he asserts when it comes to ACES. (more…)

It’s been years since Wisconsin’s welfare reforms under Gov. Tommy Thompson inspired Congress to pass the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. Now, spurred to action by a looming $1 trillion federal budget deficit, a national debt of $14 trillion and a growing taxpayer rebellion, some members of Congress are taking a stand against the earmarks so deeply entrenched in defense spending.

A bipartisan majority in the House, including the entire Wisconsin delegation, drew a line in the sand last month and voted against handing out another $3 billion to GE and Rolls Royce for the clearly unnecessary alternate engine for the F-35 joint strike fighter. This second engine would be produced in addition to the engine being manufactured by Pratt & Whitney, the company that won the competitive bidding to supply the engine for the F-35.

Pratt & Whitney is already manufacturing that engine, and it has performed well in the advanced testing required by the Air Force. Nonetheless, the federal government has paid out $1.3 billion to GE over the past 14 years to develop a long delayed second engine. Estimates are that the engine development would cost taxpayers another $3 billion.

The second engine program is obviously unneeded. President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush both tried to kill the second engine program as unnecessary and expensive. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates doesn’t want the second engine, nor does the Air Force. But until the House vote on Feb. 16, Congress had continuously approved an earmark of unrequested spending for the second engine.

Funding production of a second engine is a classic example of the earmarks that inflate the cost of defense spending and have helped build the massive federal debt.

(more…)

**UPDATED**

Last summer conservatives rolled their eyes when they read in Politico that Rep. Eric Cantor, then serving as GOP whip, suggested “Republicans may roll back their ban on earmarks.”

The self-imposed moratorium, enacted last March, was a triumph for conservatives in their long-running battle with House appropriators. Now it appeared to be under attack from the future House majority leader.

The disappointment among conservatives — not to mention Tea Party-backed candidates across America — must have resonated with Cantor. Just six week later he penned a piece for Politico declaring war on pork-barrel projects and endorsing a new moratorium in the 112th Congress.

Cantor’s outspoken opposition to earmarks put their advocates on the defensive. It set the stage for last fall’s confrontation among Senate Republicans and this week’s decision by Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) to effectively end earmarks for two years.

Why is this relevant? The GOP is facing another spending showdown — this time over $100 billion worth of cuts promised in the Pledge to America.

Republican leaders have put forward a plan that cuts non-security spending by $58 billion, a noble effort, but still $42 billion short of their campaign promise. (They also cut $16 billion from security funding.)

Conservatives believe $100 billion should equal $100 billion. Nearly 90 of them with the Republican Study Committee recently asked Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to stick to the GOP’s promise. And when the debate reaches the House floor this month, RSC Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) plans to offer an amendment — or multiple amendments — to bring the level of cuts to $100 billion.

Republican leaders, meanwhile, have been noncommittal. Cantor, when asked about it last week following a Heritage Foundation speech, said Republicans would cut $100 billion on an “annualized basis.” (That’s Beltway jargon for cuts that don’t equal $100 billion.)

(more…)

The hours of interviews I’ve done with the key people involved in the Pigford settlement are a treasure trove of information about what really happened in this multi-billion dollar debacle. Because of the holidays and then the tragic shooting in Tuscon, I wanted to hold off on releasing details about some of the major news that we’re been able to uncover — but at the risk of creating PiggieFatigue, here’s part one of a serious allegation that a U.S. Congressman knowingly was complicit in covering up fraud.

In this bombshell video clip, Georgia farmer Eddie Slaughter alleges that he told his congressman, Congressional Black Caucus member Sanford Bishop, about fraud in Pigford on multiple occasions and that Bishop responded that Slaughter should be quiet because “they’ll shut this thing down.”

This isn’t an isolated incident with Congressman Bishop.

(more…)

“Stop the bad stuff” is what John Boehner told a bunch of us at breakfast a few weeks before the election. That’s how he defined the GOP mission. Now he’s Speaker.

And now there’s an opportunity for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to move in the direction of a supply-side economic growth model to reduce chronic unemployment and really get the economy moving again.

You can’t govern from the House alone. Boehner knows that. But he also knows that you can stop the redistribution, the big spending, the overregulation, the tax hikes, and the war against business and investors.

The economy is picking up this new political vibe. Economic growth has shifted to 4 percent from 2 percent (even though the Fed hardly acknowledges this). And just in the last six weeks, indicators of better jobs and business confidence have been springing up everywhere.

The economic upturn probably started late last summer, but it has picked up steam since the elections. Car sales, ISMs, small-business confidence, and brisk holiday retail sales — the indicators all look good.

And what’s helping light things up? Low-tax-rate clarity. Stopping the pork-barrel, earmarked, omnibus spending bill. And now the potential undermining of Obamacare. Plus, the hope for broad-based spending limits, and even a corporate tax cut touted by Obama and hopefully the new House Republicans. Trust but verify. And right now I’m willing to trust.

(more…)

Republicans did a terrible job last time they were in power. The created a new entitlement program for prescription drugs. They further centralized education with the no-bureaucrat-left-behind legislation. They undid the positive reforms of the 1990s with central-panning subsidies and controls for agriculture. And they became earmark junkies as part of their votes to massively increase the burden of government spending.

Republicans say they’ve learned their lessons, and I’m sure many of the new Tea Party-oriented members genuinely want to expand freedom and prosperity for the American people, but it’s always wise to be skeptical when dealing with politicians.

If the GOPers really want to do the right thing and demonstrate their new-found commitment to liberty and sound governance, they should make – and keep – the following New Year’s resolutions. To keep it simple, realistic, and achievable, we have only six resolutions. Three resolutions deal with public policy and three resolutions are about resisting the seductive corruption that is so ubiquitous on Capitol Hill.

The three policy resolutions list things that House Republicans could adopt. That doesn’t mean they will make it through the Senate or get approved by the President. These are ideas that Republicans can pursue to show they are serious about doing what’s right for the country.

1. Limit the overall growth of government spending. America is in a fiscal mess because federal government spending has more than doubled since Bill Clinton left office. Bush was a big spender. Obama is a big spender. And Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have been big spenders. Now that we’re in a deep hole, the first imperative is to stop digging. It would be nice to actually cut spending, but simply limiting the annual growth of federal spending so that it grows no faster than inflation would yield very good results. The key to fiscal responsibility is making sure the productive sector of the economy grows faster than the burden of government spending.

(more…)

There’s a lot of attention being paid to yesterday’s landslide vote in the House to prevent a big tax increase next year. If you’re a glass-half-full optimist, you will be celebrating the good news for taxpayers. If you’re a glass-half empty pessimist, you will be angry because the bill also contains provisions to increase the burden of government spending as well as some utterly corrupt tax loopholes added to the legislation so politicians could get campaign cash from special interest groups.

If you want some unambiguously good news, however, ignore the tax deal and celebrate the fact that Senator Harry Reid had to give up his attempt to enact a pork-filled, $1 trillion-plus spending bill. This “omnibus appropriation” not only had an enormous price tag, it also contained about 6,500 earmarks. As I explained in the New York Post yesterday, earmarks are “…special provisions inserted on behalf of lobbyists to benefit special interests. The lobbyists get big fees, the interest groups get handouts and the politicians get rewarded with contributions from both. It’s a win-win-win for everyone — except the taxpayers who finance this carousel of corruption.”

This sleazy process traditionally has enjoyed bipartisan support, and many Republican Senators initially were planning to support the legislation notwithstanding the voter revolt last month. But the insiders in Washington underestimated voter anger at bloated and wasteful government. Thanks to talk radio, the Internet (including sites like this one), and a handful of honest lawmakers, Reid’s corrupt legislation suddenly became toxic.

The resulting protests convinced GOPers, even the big spenders from the Appropriations Committee, that they could no longer play the old game of swapping earmarks for campaign cash. This is a remarkable development and a huge victory for the Tea Party movement. Here’s part of the Washington Post report on this cheerful development.

(more…)

Evidently, at least one member of Congress thinks that $500,000 of your tax dollars is appropriate to construct a fish passage barrier for salmon in Alaska.  Although the Republican conference in both the House and Senate has sworn off earmarks, it seems that some in the Senate need one last feast at the trough of pork barrel spending before 2011.

The Senate is considering a catch all spending bill for the year, called the Omnibus Spending Bill that funds the federal government until September 30, 2011.  This bill is almost 2,000 pages long and is loaded with at least $8 billion in earmarks.

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) said on the Senate floor yesterday:

At 12:15 p.m. this afternoon, my office received a copy of the omnibus appropriations bill. It is 1,924 pages long and contains the funding for all 12 of the annual appropriations bills for a grand total of over $1.1 Trillion. It is important to note that the 1,924 pages is only the legislative language and does not include the thousands of pages of report language which contain the details of the billions of dollars in earmarks and, I’m sure, countless policy riders.

Senators Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) and Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) have pledged to force the Senate to read the bill.

The AP reports that “Earmarks feast on pork one last time before diet.”

(more…)

There is an old saying around Congress – there are Republicans, Democrats and Appropriators. With Republicans promising to reign in the federal government, the first order of business is to change the culture of the Appropriations Committee which has been the fueled the spending beast for decades.

The Republican leadership will decide on the next chairman of the Committee in a few days. The leading contenders are Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Hal Rogers (R-KY) and Jack Kingston (R-GA). Word on the street is that Rogers will select Bill Inglee as the Committee Staff Director should he get the job.

Who is Bill Inglee?

Inglee is the classic RINO who ran the Wednesday Group – the meeting of the liberal Republicans on the Hill. He went on the serve as a lobbyist for Lockeed Martin where he pushed for defense earmarks for the company.

To secure earmarks Inglee gave political contributions to leading Democrats include Jack Murtha (D-PA) and Dan Inouye (D-HI). In short, Inglee is not only a RINO, he is an appropriator through and through.

(more…)

Much has been written about the House GOP Leadership’s plan to ban earmarks for two years. The praise they have received from conservatives is justified, because it seems, at least for the time being, that their proposed moratorium doesn’t have the weaselly wiggle-room sometimes employed by politicians. It is also likely that their stance pushed former earmarker-extraordinaire Sen. Mitch McConnell into supporting a similar ban in the Senate. Who knew the ‘road to Damascus’ veered past the Potomac?

So far, so good. The ban on earmarks may be largely symbolic as it won’t, on its own, lower federal spending, but symbols are important. They only take you so far, however. While House GOP Leadership have tipped their hats to the tea party movement with the earmark ban, other actions they are taking this week behind the scenes will neuter the movement and consign the incoming freshman to the back of the Congressional bus.

This week, the GOP caucus will finalize committee assignments. Committees are the workshops of Congress, where legislation is debated, tweaked and finalized. Legislation emerging from committees is the legislation that comes to the House floor for a vote. (The Democrats by-passed this process, but the GOP is expected to return to committees to their traditional legislative function.)

But, not all committees are created equal. The House has a group of committees called the “A” committees, through which all significant legislation must pass. These committees are so powerful, there is even a limit on how many of these committees a member may serve.

Big Government has learned that the House GOP Leadership has made it clear; no freshmen need apply for these committees. They are reserving them for the existing members, thank you very much.

(more…)

Senate Republicans think you are stupid.  Leaders in the Senate Republican Caucus are opposing a measure by Tea Party Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina to ban earmarks for two years.  The elites are angry.

Senate Republican Leaders have led an effort to beat back DeMint’s proposal in an effort to save earmarking.  An Earmark is a special project, usually secured by a lobbyist friend of the politician, for a project in a Senator’s home state.  See Bridge to Nowhere is an excellent example of an earmark.  An earmark is a means for Members of Congress to send federal money to projects favored by the member.  These members are elitists who think the Tea Party movement will tolerate Republicans going back to the free spending ways of the Bush years.

On Tuesday, Senator DeMint is forcing a vote on a proposal to change the rules of the Senate Republican Caucus to ban earmarks for two years.  Seems like a proposal that makes sense, yet the elites and lobbyists are angry.  Leaders of the party are fighting against DeMint to make sure that they can preserve earmarking.  They just don’t get it and believe that the Tea Party movement is here to serve selfish politics.

(more…)

This week, the Senate GOP will have a showdown on Sen. Jim DeMint’s proposal to ban earmarks for two years. Senate GOP Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, who apparently missed entirely the point of the elections two weeks ago, is trying to rally his caucus to scuttle the ban. The vote will be by secret ballot, so there is really no telling how the vote may go.

On Friday, Big Journalism Editor Dana Loesch interviewed Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds about the dust-up.

You’ve endured a long hard campaign season, weathered vicious attacks from your opponent, on Election Night, you triumphed, and now you will take your seat in the 112th Congress.  Now the real work begins.

While much of your time from now through your swearing in will be filled with thanking supporters, hiring staff, and retiring campaign debt, it is imperative that you devote some time to reflect on what is that brought you to this point.  Why did the voters select you on Election Day; what do they expect from you; and how will you make good on your promises to the American public?

Republicans gained over 60 seats in the House of Representatives this Election Day.  This electoral tsunami is a reflection of how the American public is feeling.  They are tired of President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their failed liberal agenda.  From Obamacare, to flawed economic stimulus packages, to cap and trade, they’ve had enough.

The voters embraced your candidacies and ultimately cast their ballots for you because they want a real change.  They want principled conservatives who will come to Washington and stand firm on their promise to cut spending, restore fiscal discipline, and actually create an environment that fosters economic growth and job creation.  There are a few bold ideas that Americans endorsed by electing you on November 2nd, which if accomplished will help correct the course of our great nation.

(more…)

There’s a battle brewing over Earmark reform in the Senate, and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma appears ready to make it very public.

Inhofe has emerged as the chief opponent to DeMint’s anti-earmarking efforts and has quietly been preparing for this fight for months. He said Tuesday that he will deliver a “pretty strong statement” on the Senate floor Monday that will accuse DeMint of favoring earmarks until they fell out of political vogue.

However, DeMint has already acknowledged his past as an Earmarker and Inhofe has voted for a similar measure in the past. That turns any charge of simply playing politics back on him. This is also another example of the continued influence of the Tea Party movement. DeMint already has ten Senators lined up behind him. There’s said to be concern among Senators as to how a failure to act might reflect upon members up for re-election in 2012. The Tea Party has already shown its willingness to primary incumbents with which it disagrees. To paraphrase an old movie icon, Do you feel lucky, Senator? Well, do ya? (more…)

As the nation confronts a debilitating national deficit of $1.3 trillion – the second highest of all time – the Federal government must dedicate itself to spend money more responsibly and thoughtfully instead of rewarding special interests and abusing taxpayer dollars in the area of national security.  Austerity must be the goal; however, government cannot shed its responsibility to perform essential functions that keep us safe – but when it does so, it must do so in a way that is above reproach given these difficult financial times.

The latest, most recent example of the careful balance that appears to be falling toward padding special interests over responsibility is the recently-issued draft Request for Proposals (RFP) from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) entitled, “Establishing Centers of Innovation for Advanced Development and Manufacturing (ADM) as Public – Private Partnerships.”

Capitol Confidential has learned that this draft RFP is the first step by the Obama Administration to develop and build a national vaccine center with a projected cost of at least one billion dollars.

After the influenza pandemic last year it is fair to question whether the Federal government should take on more responsibility in the area of vaccine production and distribution particularly since there is a vibrant and competitive industry in the private sector, but the real questions here are why is this happening now and who stands to benefit?

We must recall during the presidential campaign, Candidate Obama told voters over and over again that he would change the way business is done in the nation’s capital.  His administration would end the pay to play, special favors, cut off the special interests and shutter the revolving door.  It was a central part of his argument: lobbyists and special interests have corrupted the process and they would have no place in an Obama Administration.

Fast forward almost two years, and we find ourselves in a situation where lobbyists, former and current administration officials, special interests and the corrupting influences have positioned themselves to haul in nearly one billion in taxpayer dollars in what could be one of the most lucrative government payoffs in history and, most disgracefully, they are doing it in a critical area of national and public health security.

(more…)

The “appearance of impropriety” is often considered the Washington standard for corruption and misbehavior. With that in mind, alarm bells began ringing in my head when I read this Washington Times report about Jacob Lew, Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Management and Budget.

Why did Citigroup decide to hire a career DC political operator for $1.1 million? As a former political aide, lobbyist, lawyer, and political appointee, what particular talents did he have to justify that salary to manage an investment division? Did the presence of Lew (as well as other Washington insiders such as Robert Rubin) help Citigroup get a big bucket of money from taxpayers as part of the TARP bailout? Did Lew’s big $900K in 2009 have anything to do with the money the bank got from taxpayers?

Is it a bit suspicious that he received his big windfall bonus four days after filing a financial disclosure? Read this blurb from the Washington Times and see if you can draw any conclusion other than this was a typical example of the sleazy relationship of big government and big business.

President Obama’s choice to be the government’s chief budget officer received a bonus of more than $900,000 from Citigroup Inc. last year — after the Wall Street firm for which he worked received a massive taxpayer bailout. The money was paid to Jacob Lew in January 2009, about two weeks before he joined the State Department as deputy secretary of state, according to a newly filed ethics form. The payout came on top of the already hefty $1.1 million Citigroup compensation package for 2008 that he reported last year.

(more…)