Thursday, November 18, 2010
Charlie Rangel's Sentence
As everyone who reads should know, Charlie Rangel, the former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has been convicted by the House Ethics Committee on eleven counts of ethics rules violations. Sentencing is to be announced today.
If I were meting out the sentence, I would strip Rangel of all seniority and all the perks that go with it--i.e., he would be treated like a newly-elected freshman. I would also permanently ban him from any leadership position, including but not limited to chairmanship of any committee or subcommittee.
I realize this is harsh, but the fact is that Rangel used his position of power and influence to insulate himself from the rules that everyone else has to follow, and in so doing violated the public trust. As a committee chairman, he owed allegiance not only to his home district, but to the country at large, because his use of power affected the country at large.
With great power comes great responsibilty. When one abuses great power, one must pay a great penalty.
(0) comments
If I were meting out the sentence, I would strip Rangel of all seniority and all the perks that go with it--i.e., he would be treated like a newly-elected freshman. I would also permanently ban him from any leadership position, including but not limited to chairmanship of any committee or subcommittee.
I realize this is harsh, but the fact is that Rangel used his position of power and influence to insulate himself from the rules that everyone else has to follow, and in so doing violated the public trust. As a committee chairman, he owed allegiance not only to his home district, but to the country at large, because his use of power affected the country at large.
With great power comes great responsibilty. When one abuses great power, one must pay a great penalty.
Labels: Congress, Corruption, Democrats, politicians, Rangel
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The SEC's Goldman Sachs Settlement
Here are the first two sentences of a Washington Examiner editorial dated 20 July 2010:
(0) comments
It seemed a little odd last week when the Securities and Exchange Commission settled its lawsuit against Goldman Sachs within two hours of Senate passage of the Democrats' Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. After all, who could ask for a more perfect backdrop than a successful prosecution of the investment colossus of Wall Street and a prime mover in the economic crisis of 2008?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010The SEC's Goldman Lawsuit
After reading a whole bunch of articles and listening to a whole bunch of news stories and commentary about the SEC's lawsuit against Goldman Sachs, I find the timing vis a vis Obama's push for financial industry reform to be too cute by half. I do not believe the disclaimers by Rahm Emanuel and others that the White House or the DNC had no prior knowledge of the SEC action. As any literate person over the age of about 15 knows, politicians lie. Especially about things that help them get what they want.
Then there are the stories about how much money Goldman's employees gave the Obama campaign, and how Obama's not going to give any of it back. There are other stories about the former Goldman employees occupying posts in the administration. Strange bedfellows, indeed.
Sorry, Charlie, I just don't believe in coincidences, especially in this administration.
I have no actual evidence of collusion, of course, but I'd like to go on record with a comment about how unsurprised I will be if, after a "decent" amount of time, the SEC and Goldman reach a settlement that either lets Goldman off the hook or has them paying a face-saving (to the SEC) but immaterial (to Goldman) sum in settlement, and all will once more be right with the world.Labels: Banking, Finance, Obama, politics, Regulation, SEC
I'm unsurprised.
Labels: Banking, Corruption, Finance, Financial Reform, Obama, politics, Regulation, SEC
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Sestak's Job Offer
At this point only those directly involved know exactly what was said to Joe Sestak (D-PA) about the good things he would experience if he dropped out of the Democrat primary race for PA senator. I find it interesting, however, that the person allegedly dispatched to talk to Sestak was former Pres. Bill Clinton. I can't think of anyone who has a better and clearer track record of being able to dance around answers to potentially embarrassing questions or, for that matter to abjectly lie to the public..
I think the only hope we have of ever finding out who said what to whom and at whose bidding is to put Sestak, Clinton, Rahm Emanuel and perhaps Obama under oath and ask them the kinds of questions a good prosecutor would ask on cross-examination. It would be interesting to see who "takes the fifth" and with respect to what questions. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen unless and until the Repubs take the House and Senate, and hold hearings on the matter, and maybe not even then, because I suspect the Dems have a closet full of dirty laundry about some high-ranking Repubs that they would publicly air in that event.
That said, the episode reeks of the Chicago way brought to Washington by Obama and his cohorts, and it should cause some political fallout.
(0) comments
I think the only hope we have of ever finding out who said what to whom and at whose bidding is to put Sestak, Clinton, Rahm Emanuel and perhaps Obama under oath and ask them the kinds of questions a good prosecutor would ask on cross-examination. It would be interesting to see who "takes the fifth" and with respect to what questions. Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen unless and until the Repubs take the House and Senate, and hold hearings on the matter, and maybe not even then, because I suspect the Dems have a closet full of dirty laundry about some high-ranking Repubs that they would publicly air in that event.
That said, the episode reeks of the Chicago way brought to Washington by Obama and his cohorts, and it should cause some political fallout.
Labels: Bill Clinton, Chicago, Corruption, Democrats, Obama, politics, Rahm Emanuel
