Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: Walpin-gate

  1. #1
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Walpin-gate

    Not getting much coverage in the MSM.. no surprise there. This has been brought up in a few thread already. Might as well have one of it's own. pretty serious when an IG gets fired for no other reason than doing his job. And lets not forget the fact the act of firing him without notice in advance breaks the very law then Senator Obama signed.

    EDITORIAL: Walpin-gate
    Obama fires an IG


    The Washington Times
    Monday, June 15, 2009
    EDITORIAL: Walpin-gate

    Congress ought to open an investigation, New York Times editorialists should be in a state of apoplexy, and MSNBC hosts ought to be frothing at the mouth. Without appropriate documentation or good reason, President Obama has fired a federal investigator who was on the case against a political ally of the president's. Mr. Obama's move has the stench of scandal.

    On June 11, Mr. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service. He offered no public reason for doing so other than that he "no longer" had "the fullest confidence" in Mr. Walpin. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, is rightly questioning the firing and the explanation for it.

    The senator noted that the Inspector General Reform Act requires the president to "communicate in writing ... the reasons for any such removal." Losing one's "fullest confidence" hardly qualifies as a justifiable reason. The Senate report language attached to the act explains: "The requirement to notify the Congress in advance of the reasons for the removal should serve to ensure that Inspectors General are not removed for political reasons."

    Yet, as Associated Press noted, "Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star." Further, "The IG found that Johnson ... had used Americorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car."

    Sacramento U.S. Attorney Larry Brown criticized Mr. Walpin for publicly announcing the investigation rather than more quietly cooperating with federal prosecutors. Clearly, though, there was merit to Mr. Walpin's charges: Mr. Brown's office reached a settlement ordering the nonprofit organization to repay half of the $850,000 in grant money it received - with $72,836.50 of that repayment coming from Mr. Johnson's own pocket.

    Mr. Grassley said, "There have been no negative findings against Mr. Walpin by the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and [Mr. Walpin] has identified millions of dollars in Americorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines. In other words, it appears he has been doing his job. We cannot afford to have Inspector General independence threatened." We concur.

    It is highly unusual and very suspicious when an IG is summarily fired, especially when political entanglements are involved. There will be much more to report in coming days on this White House action, which was heavy-handed and almost certainly unethical.
    Hopenchange... Chicago style..
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #2
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Walpin-gate

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Not getting much coverage in the MSM.. no surprise there.

    The Washington Times
    Irony is so delicious.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  3. #3
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: Walpin-gate

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangutan View Post
    Irony is so delicious.
    The bar is pretty low in regard to what passes for "irony" on your side of the isle. What.. the fact I was able to find 1 media editorial is "ironical"?

    Let's compare and contrast shall we? What happened when GW fired a few political appointees? I seem to remember blanket coverage across the cable, print and network channels for months. Hell they are still talking about opening witch trials in regard to that today! And those were political appointees!

    Here we have the messia firing without substantial cause or notice as required by law (a law the messiah himself signed off on) an IG investigating a close administration pal. An IG who by all accounts so far was doing a bang up job in finding misappropriated funds. The guy he was investigating has already written checks to repay part of what the IG discovered. And yet he gets fired?
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #4
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,493

    Re: Walpin-gate

    Obama Chicago style justice…

    Let’s not forget his support for ACORN and his justice department not prosecuting a clear cut case of voter intimidation. Also keep in mind his administration likes to threaten and intimidate private citizens and private enterprise.

    Clearly Obama ignores the law when it’s to his benefit.

    There’s a definite shady pattern to his politics. It’s too bad so few really care.

  5. #5
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: Walpin-gate

    Quote Originally Posted by tucker View Post
    Obama Chicago style justice…

    Let’s not forget his support for ACORN and his justice department not prosecuting a clear cut case of voter intimidation. Also keep in mind his administration likes to threaten and intimidate private citizens and private enterprise.

    Clearly Obama ignores the law when it’s to his benefit.

    There’s a definite shady pattern to his politics. It’s too bad so few really care.
    Ya.. remember the "good old days" when accusations of improprieties and shredding the constitution were all the rage? How did they put it.. dissent being the greatest form of patriotism or some such claptrap.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #6
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: Walpin-gate

    The Walpin Story

    If, like me, you haven't had time over the last few days to keep up with the story of Barack Obama's firing of Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General who has responsibility for the AmeriCorps program, Byron York will bring you up to speed. The story is an interesting one that sheds light on the lawless, bullying nature of the Obama administration.

    Walpin, who by statute is supposed to be independent of White House control, ran afoul of Obama because he investigated a charity operated by former pro basketball player Kevin Johnson, a prominent Obama supporter. The non-profit, St. Hope, received an $850,000 grant from AmeriCorps. Walpin investigated what St. Hope did with the money and concluded that much of it was improperly spent, e.g. to pay recipients to wash Johnson's car. The result of Walpin's investigation was that St. Hope agreed to repay half the money it got from AmeriCorps. However, since St. Hope is insolvent, AmeriCorps is unlikely to get its money back. The acting U.S. Attorney in Sacramento declined to criminally prosecute anyone in connection with these events.

    Apparently in retaliation for having put the heat on an Obama supporter, the President had Norman Eisen, a Special Counsel to the President, telephone Walpin and demand that he resign within an hour. Walpin, pointing out that he is not a political appointee and does not serve at the President's pleasure, declined to do so. So Obama fired him. By statute, Obama is required to give Congress 30 days' written notice of his intention to fire an inspector general and set forth his reasons for doing so. Obama failed to comply with that aspect of the statute, merely saying that Walpin no longer has the President's "fullest confidence." That would be sufficient reason to replace a political appointee, but not to fire an inspector general. The Obama administration first denied, but now admits, that the President is firing Walpin because of the St. Hope affair.

    Byron has much more. The bottom line, though, is that this story adds to the disconcerting picture we are getting of the Obama administration--a picture of lawlessness, hyperpartisanship, cronyism and lack of transparency.

    UPDATE, via a commenter: Jake Tapper has more, particularly relating to Walpin's conflict with the acting U.S. Attorney in Sacramento. I'm not crazy about the institutional role of the Inspectors General, but reviewing the various charges and counter-charges, it's hard to see that Walpin was doing anything other than zealously carrying out his statutorily-mandated duties. What distinguishes this case from many others where an Inspector General makes himself unpopular is that Walpin crossed Barack Obama by investigating the President's crony. That's how it looks based on the evidence now available, anyway.

    UPDATE: Much more here. It's looking worse and worse for the Obama administration. It turns out that Walpin's firing was part of an effort to make sure that the City of Sacramento would be eligible for many millions of dollars in federal "stimulus" funds.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #7
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: Walpin-gate

    ^^ Linked story::

    &

    The Walpin Story: It's About Money

    Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General responsible for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps, was fired by Barack Obama after he blew the whistle on waste of government funds by a nonprofit run by Obama supporter Kevin Johnson, the Mayor of Sacramento. (It apparently is undisputed that Johnson was using AmeriCorps funds to pay people to wash his car, run errands for him, and so on.) Walpin's effort to discharge his duties got him in hot water not only with Johnson, but also with the Corporation's head, Alan Solomont, a Democratic Party fundraiser and Obama crony, and the acting U.S. Attorney in Sacramento.

    We wrote about Obama's firing of Walpin here. Now, Walpin has given an interview and more details of the incident have come to light. Byron York explains that Walpin's firing grew out of Sacramento's desire to get its hands on millions of dollars in federal "stimulus" money:

    The White House's decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin came amid politically-charged tensions inside the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that runs AmeriCorps. Top executives at the Corporation, Walpin explained in an hour-long interview Saturday, were unhappy with his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a prominent supporter of President Obama. Walpin's investigation also sparked conflict with the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento amid fears that the probe -- which could have resulted in Johnson being barred from ever winning another federal grant -- might stand in the way of the city receiving its part of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. After weeks of standoff, Walpin, whose position as inspector general is supposed to be protected from influence by political appointees and the White House, was fired.
    The proposition that Sacramento could lose its stimulus money if Johnson was barred, as Walpin wanted, from receiving federal grant money, seems dubious to me as a legal proposition. But a lawyer retained by the City came to that conclusion, as the Sacramento Bee reported:

    The city of Sacramento likely is barred from getting federal money -- including tens of millions the city is expecting from the new stimulus package -- because Mayor Kevin Johnson is on a list of individuals forbidden from receiving federal funds, according to a leading attorney the city commissioned to look into the issue.
    So the investigation had to be swept under the rug quickly, and Walpin had to go. Obama had one of his White House lawyers call Walpin and demand that he resign within an hour. When Walpin refused to quit, Obama fired him without giving a reason other than his supposed lack of "fullest confidence" in Walpin. This certainly violated the spirit, and may have violated the letter of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which Obama co-sponsored. (I think it probably did.) This is classic Obama--ignoring a statute which he himself had sponsored just a year earlier.

    Everything that we know about the Walpin episode so far contributes to the picture we are getting of the Obama administration--its fondness for bullying tactics; its lawlessness; its cronyism; its lack of transparency; its eagerness to crush anyone who gets in the way of Democratic Party corruption. I'm afraid we're going to see many similar stories over the next 3 1/2 years.


    A final observation: it is inexplicable that many liberals who are convinced that money in politics is the source of corruption nevertheless believe that the government can spread around $800 billion in what can charitably be described as disorganized fashion without engendering far greater corruption. I don't believe that the love of money is the root of all evil, but it does account for a significant chunk of it.
    hopeychange...
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #8
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Walpin-gate

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    The bar is pretty low in regard to what passes for "irony" on your side of the isle. What.. the fact I was able to find 1 media editorial is "ironical"?
    The reason it's ironic is because of what you said ("Not much coverage in the MSM!!1") and then what you did (Washington Times piece). No, you didn't say there was zero coverage but there is still a nice contrast, as I don't think you can get much more mainstream than the Washington Times.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  9. #9
    Joined
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    6,884

    Re: Walpin-gate

    Can't get much more mainstream than the Washington Times? Certainly with respect to volume, uh, yeah you can. In fairness, however, this happened four days ago. Despite our "instant info" society, I'd give a few more days before I'd cry foul on this. If it hasn't hit the evening news of the networks by then, I'd cite it as another case of covering for "The One".

    After all, it takes a while to author a creative story that won't cast the administration in a bad light and there's bound to be something juicy that *doesn't* make the administration look bad by this next weekend. LOL

  10. #10
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,422

    Re: Walpin-gate

    I watched an interview today with Walpin on Glenn Beck's show and he claims that he refused to accept the request from the White House to "quit". Apparently, a law was passed in Congress in 2008 that says any IG must receive 30 days notice before termination and must be presented with cause. He claims he received neither.

    This will be an interesting one to watch. I say that because Walpin is an older guy who doesn't need the job, seems to know the rules, is very experienced and knowledgeable and comes off as someone willing to put up a legal fight.

  11. #11
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: Walpin-gate

    I seriously hope he sticks to his guns. I also hope the Nobama administration is stupid/arrogant enough not to back down and let this get subject to a "special investigator".

    The curious firing of Gerald Walpin gets … curiouser

    Senator Charles Grassley has demanded records from the Obama administration over the dismissal of the Inspector General for Americorps and raises the possibility that Barack Obama broke a law he co-sponsored in the Senate that protects the independence of the IGs. The firing comes as the Obama administration cut a sweetheart deal with a major Obama backer that allows him to receive federal funding as mayor of Sacramento, and fails to repay taxpayers for the money Kevin Johnson admittedly took illegally:

    In an email and fax sent late Friday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, demanded that Alan D. Solomont, the chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, provide “any and all records, email, memoranda, documents, communications, or other information, whether in draft or final form” related to President Obama’s firing of CNCS Inspector General Gerald Walpin. …

    “For reasons that I do not yet understand, the OIG was excluded from this proceeding and the settlement lifting the suspension, was done in complete disregard of the OIG’s findings, as well as the previous determination of wrong doing identified in the Notice of Suspension,” Grassley wrote. “Perhaps the settlement agreement was reached without any input from the OIG, because less than half of what was misused by the Corporation grantees is being returned to the taxpayer and the OIG would not have agreed to this arrangement. In fact, an argument can be made that not even half of the misused funds is being returned, because the settlement does not require that payment in full be made. Rather the settlement places the grantees on a type of payment plan that will occur over a decade; to date less than 10% of the misused money has been recovered.”
    Byron York interviewed Walpin and got more information on how the Obama administration froze him out of negotiations with Johnson:

    As this was happening, the matter was also under consideration by the local U.S. attorney’s office after Walpin referred the matter to the office for a criminal inquiry. Since January of this year, the office has been headed by an acting U.S. attorney, Lawrence Brown, a career prosecutor who took over after the departure of the previous, Bush-appointed U.S. attorney. The office decided not to pursue criminal charges against Johnson, but also entered into settlement talks with Johnson and St. HOPE. What resulted was, according to Walpin, highly unusual.

    Settlement talks would normally cover the issue of whether Johnson would be required to give the misused federal funds back to the government. But amid the frenzy surrounding the possible denial of federal stimulus funds, Brown wanted to negotiate not only some sort of repayment scheme but also an end to Johnson’s suspension. Walpin learned about that during a March telephone conversation with Brown. “He said he wanted to settle,” Walpin recalls, “and he said that lifting the suspension had to be part of it because that was the 800-pound gorilla in the way of a settlement.”

    Walpin was adamantly opposed to a lifting of the suspension; after all, he had recommended that Johnson not only be suspended but be barred for receiving future federal funds. Walpin says that after that, he was cut out of the settlement talks; Brown worked directly with top officials of the Corporation, who seemed eager to work out a deal in a case involving a high-profile Obama supporter and lots of stimulus money. (The Corporation is now headed by Alan Solomont, a philanthropist and Democratic fundraiser appointed by President Obama.)

    Together, Brown and the top Corporation brass negotiated a deal. Johnson and St. HOPE would pay back about half of the $850,000 in AmeriCorps grant money it had received, and the suspension against Johnson would be lifted.

    Walpin was very unhappy. First of all, he said it was a terrible deal for the U.S. government, because St. HOPE was essentially insolvent and would never pay the money back. Second, he felt lifting Johnson’s suspension would dilute the effectiveness of future investigations; why should grant recipients worry about their misconduct if any sanctions can be so easily lifted? In the end, Johnson was not suspended, not debarred, and was probably not going to pay the vast majority of the money back.
    Hope and change! It looks very suspicious. The administration has overtly interfered with the IG in his investigation, and now has tried to fire him, apparently for reporting to Congress. If so, then the White House has abused its power on behalf of a campaign contributor and political ally — an act that would make Richard Nixon blush. I doubt this Congress will hold Obama accountable for it, but kudos to Senator Grassley for not letting it go.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #12
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: Walpin-gate

    The short answer... if it continues to go largely reported.. yes.

    Will Democrats cover up the AmeriCorps mess?

    By: Byron York
    Chief Political Correspondent
    06/16/09 12:13 AM EDT

    Can Republicans in Congress get to the bottom of President Obama's sudden -- and suspicious -- decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin? The answer is no -- unless some. Democrats show interest in what could possibly be the first scandal, or at least mini-scandal, of the Obama administration.

    In dismissing Walpin, the president seemed to trample on the law -- a law he himself had co-sponsored as a senator -- that protects inspectors general from political influence and retribution. In addition, it appears that at least part of the reason Walpin was fired was for the tenacity he showed in investigating misuse of AmeriCorps money by a friend and supporter of the president, Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, California. Walpin got the goods -- evidence of Johnson's serious misuse of federal dollars -- and the inspector general ended up getting fired for his troubles.

    So the Walpin case is just the kind of thing the watchdogs of good government in the House and Senate might investigate. But Democrats enjoy solid majorities in both houses, and thus control what will be investigated, and how any investigation will proceed. As the minority party, Republicans have little power to do anything.

    "We can't move something through a committee," says one Republican Senate aide. "We can't issue a subpoena. But we can write letters, and we can jump up and down."

    That's pretty much what Republicans are reduced to doing now. They are asking the administration for information -- politely -- and are trying to get the message out through the press. That's all they can do.

    They're not particularly optimistic about getting help from the other side. Would Majority Leader Harry Reid really have any interest in a tough probe of a Democratic White House, a Democratic AmeriCorps, and a Democratic mayor who just happens to be a friend of the president?

    The committee that would normally be expected to look into the matter would be the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which oversees AmeriCorps. But the chairman is Sen. Edward Kennedy, who in April joined President Obama to celebrate the passage of the $5.7 billion Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which will triple the size of AmeriCorps. Kennedy is highly unlikely to support an investigation that might tarnish his favorite program.

    Inspectors general as a whole are watched over by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, headed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Some Republicans hope -- a little -- that Lieberman will lend a hand, but they're not holding their breath.

    The one lawmaker who has shown real interest in investigating the AmeriCorps matter is Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Throughout his career, Grassley has been something of a guardian angel for inspectors general, and he was on the Walpin case from the very beginning.

    But Grassley is not just a Republican, he's also on the Senate Finance Committee, which really doesn't have much jurisdiction over this particular matter. So he did what Republicans can do -- he wrote a letter, to Alan Solomont, the former Democratic fundraiser who now heads AmeriCorps.

    "It is vital that Congress obtain a full understanding of the role that you and your colleagues…played in these matters," Grassley wrote. "Inspectors General have a statutory duty to report to Congress. Intimidation or retaliation against those who freely communicate their concerns to members of the House and Senate cannot be tolerated. This is especially true when such concerns are as legitimate and meritorious as Mr. Walpin’s appear to be."

    Grassley asked AmeriCorps to hand over all records and e-mails and documents and other information about the Walpin firing. But if Grassley is the only one doing the asking, the administration doesn't really have to comply.

    In 1993, just after Bill Clinton was elected and Democrats controlled both the House and Senate, a lone Republican congressman, Rep. Bill Clinger, wanted to investigate the suspicious firings of the White House Travel Office staff.

    But majority Democrats had no inclination to pursue the matter. Clinger tried and tried, wrote letter after letter, and jumped up and down, but he didn't begin to get results until after November 1994, when Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress.

    When it comes to investigating allegations of wrongdoing, Republicans today are right back where they were in 1993.


    Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts can be read daily at ExaminerPolitics.com.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #13
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: Walpin-gate

    The Glen Beck/Byron York interview

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #14
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    8,887

    Re: Walpin-gate

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ved-doing-job/

    An official responsible for monitoring how federal funds for volunteerism are spent told FOX News he was fired by President Obama for doing his job, and suggested it was payback for investigating the alleged misuse of grant money by the Sacramento mayor, an Obama backer.
    Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

  15. #15
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,262

    Re: Walpin-gate

    More Pressure on the Walpin Firing from House Republicans

    Eventually the MSM will have to pick up on this. A news release from Rep. Issa's office:

    WASHINGTON. D.C. – House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) today, in a letter to White House Counsel Gregory Craig, asked that the White House produce all e-mail and other communications with the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California regarding the dismissal of AmeriCorps Inspector General (IG) Gerald Walpin.

    “Despite the requirement to notify Congress in advance of firing an IG, the White House moved swiftly to sack an investigator who uncovered wrongdoing and abuse by a political ally of the President,” said Issa. “This firing contradicts many promises made by this President and raises a number of questions including whether the White House exerted improper political pressure on a U.S. Attorney involved in this case.”

    The Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, which President Barack Obama cosponsored, requires that they give Congress 30 days notice before dismissing an IG and provide Congress with an explanation of why such action is necessary. In dismissing an IG who had uncovered misuse of funds by the mayor of Sacramento, a political supporter of the President, the White House immediately placed Mr. Walpin on administrative leave, barred him from returning to his office, and sent Congress a letter stating that the IG would be fired in 30 days citing only, “It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General. That is no longer the case with regard to this Inspector General.”

    Rep. Issa stated that, intended or not, the firing would have a chilling effect on Inspectors General investigating waste, fraud, and abuse of stimulus funds. “Because the President did not follow the law in firing an Inspector General and clearly articulating the reasons for his removal, this firing sends a chilling message to all Inspectors General: investigating a political ally of this President may cost you your job.”

    Click here<http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/letters/20090615IGCNCSIGremoval.pdf> for a copy of the letter to White House Counsel Gregory Craig.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •