When Maxine Waters Needed Ethics Advice, She Turned to Barney Frank

Maybe you see the problem here:

US Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts urged Representative Maxine Waters of California to avoid any dealings with Boston-based OneUnited Bank because her husband owned stock in it. But the congresswoman didn’t heed his warnings, according to a House ethics report released yesterday, and now faces a possible trial before her colleagues over a conflict of interest with the bank.
The 79-page report by the Office of Congressional Ethics said Waters confided to Frank that bank officials came to her for help in 2008. But she felt conflicted because her husband, Sidney Williams, had served on the board of OneUnited from 2004-2008 and was a stockholder. It is against House rules to use one’s power as a member for personal financial gain.

Anyway, the bank in which Waters and her husband were involved had a rather strange interpretation of “community service”:

The case renewed attention on OneUnited, the nation’s largest minority-owned bank, which has been dogged by financial and governance troubles since the financial crisis erupted in the fall of 2008.
The bank lost $50 million on investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac . . . and was sanctioned soon after by bank regulators, who charged that it had employed poor standards on loans and documentation. Regulators also chided the bank’s top executives for taking excessive pay and perks, including a $6.4 million beachfront mansion in Santa Monica the bank says it used to conduct business. . . .
In fact, the bank was making very few home loans in recent years, according to a Globe review. The handful of mortgages the bank did write were mainly to wealthy clients in tony locations, including the South End and Martha’s Vineyard, despite the bank’s stated mission to support Boston’s urban communities.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with “wealthy clients in tony locations,” but isn’t it ironic that Waters — who militates constantly in the name of social justice to the poor — should get entangled in ethics charges over a bank that seems mainly to have been interested in helping the rich?

You Might Be a Raaaaacist If . . .

. . . you think Democrats are corrupt:

The politically charged decisions by veteran Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel of New York and Maxine Waters of California to force public trials by the House ethics committee are raising questions about race and whether black lawmakers face more scrutiny over allegations of ethical or criminal wrongdoing than their white colleagues. . . .

Should I even bother debunking that theme? Or is the perverse reasoning obvious enough that everyone can spot it?

Democrats and Ethics: An Oxymoron

As co-author of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party, I am certainly not surprised to learn that Rep. Charlie Rangel and Rep. Maxine Waters have been less than exemplars of selflessness in public service.

What’s interesting is how, when Republicans get caught with their pants down and/or their hands in the cookie jar, the media depict the scandal-afflicted politician as tainting the entire party, as if philandering and graft are pervasive within the GOP and as if Democrats never have these problems. In fact — as readers of Donkey Cons know (see p. 36) — corrupt/criminal Democrats in Congress since 1975 have outnumbered crooked Republicans by a ratio of 3-to-1.

This is an area where political facts and political perception diverge primarily because of two factors:

  • Media bias — About which we need say little more, given the evidence that nearly 90 percent of Washington journalists vote Democrat. When a Democrat is caught in a scandal, this is usually portrayed in the press as an isolated incident (one anomalously bad apple in an otherwise wholesome bunch) whereas the media go out of their way to paint crooked Republicans as symbolic of some larger and uniquely partisan flaw.
  • Liberal “idealism” — Because Democrats posture as the party of the underdog — the oppressed, the exploited, the “little guy” — their graft and swindling gets excused by a sort of ends-justifies-the-means rationale. Oh, Ted Kennedy helped poor people, so who cares if he left a girl to die? This is but another example of how the “social justice” mentality operates. Being a liberal in good standing means that, no matter how corrupt you are, you’re never really guilty. By advocating putatively noble causes, Democrats thereby ensure they are forgiven all their sins in the eyes of the liberal congregration.

This points toward the fundamental corruption at the heart of liberal ideology — the Great Something-for-Nothing Swindle by which Democrats promise, “Vote for us and we’ll give you stuff.” It’s a chump’s play, as transparently crooked as a three-card monte game, and yet the people who elect the likes of Maxine Waters to Congress never seem to get wise to it. As Michelle Malkin says:

 Go back and look at my liveblogging of the TARP debate. Note how aggressive Waters was in taking a lead role pushing congressional black caucus members to swallow the crap sandwich. No disclosure of her own self interest in the matter. She’s just a Champion of The People, speaking Truth to Power.

I’m sure if you go talk to Maxine’s constituents, they still think of her that way. Their political worldview is impervious to facts.

Alabama Tea Party Activist Suspects Corruption in $50 Million Contract

Martha Roby is the GOP establishment’s pick for the nomination in Alabama’s 2nd District congressional race against “Blue Dog” Democrat Rep. Bobby Bright. She fell short of a majority in the June 1 primary and got pushed into July 13 runoff by Tea Party-backed candidate Rick Barber. And it looks like Roby’s friends in Montgomery city government are trying to run out the clock on what could be a serious scandal: Did Roby, as a city council member, vote on a $50 million contract that awarded business to her husband’s law firm?

Tea Party activist Richard England thinks so:

Montgomery City Council Resolution 28-2009 was a $50 million dollar bond awarded to a Montgomery law firm. The bill passed unanimously, meaning that City Councilwoman and Congressional candidate Martha Roby voted for it.
On June 11th, I filed a freedom of information act request at Montgomery City Hall to find out the dealings between City Council and Balch & Bingham, the Montgomery law firm where Riley Roby is a partner. Riley Roby is Martha Roby’s husband.
Normally, they fill FOIA requests with 48 hours. It’s been three weeks, and they refuse to tell me which law firm was awarded the $50 million contract through City Council Resolution28-2009; this, despite the fact that they responded to my original request of every bond issue and recipient law firm going back to the 1990s.
Montgomery Records Manager Tom Register has confirmed that the vote was unanimous and that the bond was for $50 million, but he says he can’t tell me which firm the contract was awarded to.
I believe that Balch & Bingham was awarded the contract. I believe that City Hall is trying to protect Martha Roby because her vote to award her husband’s firm the contract is tantamount to corruption. . . .
Please contact City of Montgomery Records Manager Tom Register at 334 241 2098. Contact Richard England at 334 531 6306 or 334 356 3106.

Yeah, it would also be good to get the Roby campaign to respond to this accusation.

UPDATE: Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs links and produces documents showing that Roby did not recuse herself on this vote.

Dictatorship of the Obamatariat: Federal Court Rejects Gerald Walpin Lawsuit

Via Instapundit, we learn that a judge has rejected the AmeriCorps inspector general’s wrongful termination claim. Byron York explains:

[I]f the decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts stands, in the future the White House will be able fire other inspectors general as it fired Walpin without fear of legal consequences. . . .
Judge Roberts rejected Walpin’s claim by deciding that Walpin was not summarily fired, after all. Even though Walpin was placed on immediate administrative leave on June 10, his authority removed, denied access to his office, email, etc., Roberts says Walpin was not technically fired until later, after the White House had notified Congress. Therefore, the president did not violate the law in ousting Walpin.

Is this just raw politics?

The legal ruling comes nearly a month after Walpin filed an unusual petition with a federal appeals court in Washington, trying to force Roberts to issue a decision.
Roberts was appointed to the bench in 1998 by President Bill Clinton. Walpin, a prominent Republican attorney in New York, was named to the I.G. post by President George W. Bush in 2007.

Jimmie Bise has more at Sundries Shack.

Jack Abramoff’s Ghost!

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit links this ABC News item: 

With the support of Sen. Chris Dodd, D.-Conn., the federal government has awarded $54 million to Connecticut’s politically well-connected Mohegan Indian tribe, which operates one of the highest grossing casinos in the U.S.
The tribe runs the sprawling Mohegan Sun casino, halfway between New York City and Boston, which earned more than $1.3 billion in gross revenues in 2009.

Am I the only one who remembers the outrage about special deals for gaming tribes when Republicans were in charge of Congress?

Meanwhile, Dan Riehl and Doug Powers call attention to Joe Biden’s summer Stimulupalooza Tour. Maybe it will be like the Grateful Dead, with hippies selling incense and tie-dye T-shirts in the parking lot.

(Via Memeorandum.)

IG-Gate Update: Federal Judge Stalling Gerald Walpin’s AmeriCorps Case

Dan Collins at Piece of Work in Progress notes that, more than a year after Gerald Walpin was fired from his job as inspector general overseeing the AmeriCorps program, Walpin’s lawsuit against the Corporation for National and Community Service  is still unresolved. The Washington Times has more:

The most public dispute between the administration and Mr. Walpin involved the IG’s efforts to sanction Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and self-proclaimed friend of the first couple, for a series of ethical and financial improprieties in Mr. Johnson’s use of AmeriCorps grants.
On June 9, 2010, The Washington Times broke the story that AmeriCorps’ parent, Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), ignored its own sanctions against Mr. Johnson for infractions admitted by the mayor by featuring him in an honored speaking slot at the upcoming National Conference on Volunteering and Service June 28 through 30 in New York. By June 11 – the anniversary of the firing – CNCS executives made a series of frantic phone calls that resulted in Mr. Johnson being scrubbed from the list of speakers and removed from the website. The remaining questions are: Who invited Mr. Johnson in the first place, and why?

Walpin’s lawsuit is a major reason that the Obama administration can’t make the IG-Gate story go away.

AIG’s $100 Billion I.O.U.

Good luck collecting on this one:

A watchdog panel reviewing the bailout of American International Group Inc. said U.S. taxpayers “remain at risk for severe losses” and that the government didn’t act aggressively enough to protect U.S. taxpayers during the 2008 rescue.
In a lengthy report, the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel concluded that the U.S. government, which owns nearly 80% of the insurance giant, is likely to “remain a significant shareholder in AIG through 2012” and it is unclear if taxpayers “will ever be repaid in full.” . . .
Since September 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Treasury Department have committed up to $182.3 billion to support AIG and provided roughly $132 billion of those funds so far. AIG is on the hook to repay about $101 billion mainly through asset sales and stock sales, and the rest is to be recouped from mortgage securities the New York Fed took onto its balance sheet. . . .
It also said a controversial decision by the New York Fed in late 2008 to pay off AIG’s trading partners in full on $62 billion in soured mortgage trades “distorted the marketplace” and protected AIG creditors at the expense of taxpayers.
“Billions of taxpayer dollars were put at risk, a marketplace was forever changed, and the confidence of the American people was badly shaken,” the report said. The panel, which oversees the government’s financial-bailout program, is chaired by Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor. . . .

Read the rest of that. And notice that the guy who put taxpayers on the hook for the AIG bailout has since failed upward:

The New York Federal Reserve under Timothy Geithner failed to exhaust all options to arrange a private-sector rescue of American International Group before launching a taxpayer-funded bailout in 2008, a government watchdog group said on Thursday.
A report by the Congressional Oversight Panel said Geithner, now U.S. Treasury Secretary, on Sept. 15, 2008 left the task of finding a private bailout for AIG to two Wall Street banks, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs Group. . . .
“The Panel is concerned that the government put the effort to organize a private AIG rescue in the hands of only two banks — banks with severe conflicts of interest as they would have been among the largest beneficiaries of a taxpayer bailout,” the report said.

Classic.