Cronyism, Incompetence & Immorality: March 2010

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

CREW, VoteVets File IRS, FTC Complaints Against Sean Hannity Charity Freedom Concerts

Freedom Concerts, Sean Hannity's scholarship charity for the children of fallen soldiers, has violated its charitable tax status, according to a Washington advocacy group.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington alleges that Hannity's Freedom Concerts has "engaged in deceptive and illegal marketing practices by suggesting that all concert ticket sale revenue goes directly to scholarships for children of killed and wounded service members." CREW and veterans groupVoteVets have filed complaints with the IRS and the Federal Trade Commission about Freedom Concerts, Freedom Alliance, and Lt. Col. Oliver North.

The two groups hosted a joint press conferenceMonday to discuss their complaints. VoteVets Chair Jon Soltz questioned Freedom Concert's priorities. "It's appalling and absurd that... 80-90% of the money [raised] is going toward overhead, not scholarships," Soltz said.

"They've made statements that 100% of [all] funds go toward scholarships," said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of CREW. "This is the kind of deceptive marketing the FTC looks poorly upon."

Freedom Concerts events have been organized by Premier Marketing, according to conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel and CREW. Premier Marketing is operated by Duane Ward, the speaking engagement agent for both Sean Hannity and Oliver North, according to Schlussel.

According to CREW, Freedom Concerts donates some money to Freedom Alliance, an organization founded by North. He is now the group's honorary chairman.

A little more than a week ago, Schlussel called out Hannity's charity for what she described as a "huge scam":

...less than 20%-and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively-of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity's statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes. ...

Monday, March 22, 2010

OpEdNews - Article: Brutal Prisons Are Hurting Us All

For OpEdNews: Stephen Unger - Writer

Get caught stealing a lamb in 18th century England and you wound up dancing in the air at the end of a rope. Recidivism was not a problem. But the "hang 'em high" approach did not work all that well due to corruption and soft-hearted juries.

If we give up the idea of executing all convicted criminals, what should we do with them? Transporting them to Australia was another British solution, but that probably isn't an option today. Rejecting other old England ideas such as branding and the pillory, the principal solution of choice today in the US is, of course, the prison. But, since it would be far too expensive to imprison all convicts for life, nearly all of them have to be released at some point.

Unfortunately, rather than deter people from committing crimes, our system seems to have the reverse effect, as a lot of inmates are brutalized by their prison experience and come out worse than when they went in. The overall effect is to train and motivate criminals. Most of those released wind up back inside within a few years. The cost of this failure to all of us is enormous, both in human and in monetary terms [1]. Before considering possible solutions, let's take a look at what exists today.

...

Inmates are often assaulted by both prison guards and by other prisoners. Many violent inmates belong to prison gangs, who exercise considerable control over life within the walls. Prison authorities often find it convenient to tolerate gangs.

A substantial number of convicts are uneducated to the point of illiteracy. Many suffer from mental or physical illnesses that directly or indirectly got them into trouble. These factors add substantially to their difficulty in fitting into normal life after release.

If our prison system were truly serious about reducing recidivism, then major efforts would be made to educate prisoners and to treat their physical and mental problems. Addiction to drugs and alcohol would also be addressed. Few prison systems make more than token efforts along these lines. The result is that most convicts are back in -prison within three years after release. ...

If we could improve the system so as to reduce recidivism from over 50% to say, less than 30%, the number of criminals. both on the street and behind bars, would be greatly reduced. The number of people hurt by criminals in various ways would fall dramatically, and the costs of the system would eventually go down sharply. The beneficiaries would also include those currently committing the crimes, and their families.

Another, more idealistic, reason for concern is well captured in the quote below, from an unexpected source:

The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country. A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused against the state and even of convicted criminals against the state, a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry of all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment, tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if only you can find it in the heart of every person.

I'll bet you didn't guess that these words were written by that well known bleeding heart liberal, Winston Churchill. This is part of a statement he made a century ago when, as Home Secretary in the British cabinet, he proposed major reforms in the British penal system [6].

When thinking about convicted criminals it is natural to picture vicious hoodlums gunning down gas station attendants or raping 16 year olds. Sadly, such people do exist, and need to be dealt with appropriately. I'll get back to them shortly. First, let's understand that they constitute a small fraction of the prison population, The majority of prison inmates are there because they were caught with 6 ounces of marijuana or crack cocaine, or stole a car, or forged a check, or stole a jacket from a department store, or a DVD player from someone's house. Many of the violent crimes committed by other inmates were of the nature of bar room brawls. The point is that the great majority of those in prison, especially the younger people, are far from being beyond redemption. ...

Who Gets Locked Up?

Note first that the US leads the world in the incarceration race. We have more prisoners, roughly 2.3 million, and more prisoners per capita than any other country. Think of it! The land of the free jails more people than China or Russia!

...

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Right Plays the Race Card | People For the American Way

RIGHT WING LEADERS FOMENT RACIAL RESENTMENT AND POINT FINGERS TO AVOID ACCOUNTABILITY

Introduction

Right-wing pundits and political leaders committed to the destruction of the Obama presidency have been openly fomenting racial resentment or tolerating those who do. In one breath, they accuse President Obama of being racist and in the next they and their media allies howl with indignation if their own racial rhetoric is challenged. Among their charges: that President Obama hates "white culture" and that his health care reform efforts are a backdoor means to reparations for slavery that will "enslave" doctors and put the "racial grievance industry" in charge of emergency rooms.

Race-baiting pundits try to insulate themselves by falsely claiming that liberals play the "race card" to equate any criticism of the Obama administration with racism. In fact, this charge is itself an example of inflaming racial resentments for political gain. In other words, crying "You can't even criticize Obama without being called a racist" is just one more way to suggest that white conservatives are being oppressed.

At the same time, Religious Right leaders insist that Obama's election has put the nation under a "curse" and ask Black Christians to repent for putting "race over God."

It is imperative that political, media, and cultural leaders be willing to hold public figures accountable for destructive rhetoric while not allowing right-wing racial arsonists to divert energy and focus from the administration's legislative agenda. The most important question is not whether a particular pundit or politician harbors racist feelings; it is whether they are fomenting and inflaming racial resentment as a political strategy without concern for the destructive and dangerous consequences. That political behavior can and must be challenged without getting stuck in "is he or isn't he" arguments. ...

The BRAD BLOG : Feds Finds Massive Fraud in Bush's $150 Billion Iraq Reconstruction; Also Looking at Afghanistan

...

Investigators looking into corruption involving reconstruction in Iraq say they have opened more than 50 new cases in six months by scrutinizing large cash transactions - involving banks, land deals, loan payments, casinos and even plastic surgery - made by some of the Americans involved in the nearly $150 billion program.

Some of the cases involve people who are suspected of having mailed tens of thousands of dollars to themselves from Iraq, or of having stuffed the money into duffel bags and suitcases when leaving the country, the federal investigators said. In other cases, millions of dollars were moved through wire transfers. Suspects then used cash to buy BMWs, Humvees and expensive jewelry, or to pay off enormous casino debts.

Some suspects also tried to conceal foreign bank accounts in Ghana, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Britain, the investigators said, while in other cases, cash was simply found stacked in home safes.

There have already been dozens of indictments and convictions for corruption since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But the new cases seem to confirm what investigators have long speculated: that the chaos, weak oversight and wide use of cash payments in the reconstruction program in Iraq allowed many more Americans who took bribes or stole money to get off scot-free.

But by all means, let's focus instead on ACORN, which helps some 400,000 low-income families in 75 cities with basic needs, because they've received an average of $3.5 million in federal dollars to help with their efforts for each of the last 15 years.

That's "million" (with an m), as opposed to the "billions" as still misreported by James O'Keefe and the other journalistic malpracticers at "Andrew Breitbart Presents...Big Government." Six months ago, in a still-uncorrected item at Breitbart's website --- their first one on the phony ACORN "pimp" hoax videos --- O'Keefe mis-reported that ACORN "receive[s] billions in tax money."

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Whiff of Eugenics: Ginsburg Tells NYT Roe Was About 'Populations That We Don't Want .... Too Many Of' | NewsBusters.org

In a July 7 New York Times Magazine article ("The Place of Women on the Court"; HT to an e-mailer) apparently scheduled to appear in its July 12 print edition (based on its URL), Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Times's Emily Bazelon that "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Who is this "we" Ginsburg refers to?

Alleged reporter Bazelon did not follow up on this astounding admission.

...

Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.

OpEdNews - Article: Tax Records Show Hannity Freedom Concerts Mostly Fund White Collar Write-Offs

For OpEdNews: Gustav Wynn - Writer

Top-rated talk host Sean Hannity is incessant in plugging his Freedom Concert tours on the radio, advertised as fundraisers for a great cause: college tuition money earmarked for the children of slain US troops. His disclaimers always included the usual mumbo-jumbo if you listen closely, 100% of the profits would be going to the families of our heros.

But where creative accounting can make almost anything look like an "expense", many have wondered what kind of money is going to the families and how much is being used for all the paper-pushing, marketing, consulting or direct mail jobs, bureaucratic overhead, patronage contracts or worse.

A nasty donnybrook recently begun by ultra-right wing blogger Debbie Schlussel asked some of these questions, accusing Hannity and the Freedom Alliance of exploiting public trust. Schlussel described lavish travel expenses and favored treatment for Hannity's pals, interspersed with descriptions of paltrey donations given to soldiers with grotesque injuries.

But the official tax returns filed by the Freedom Alliance did indeed show that the foundation's overhead was far greater than it's charitable payouts for the last three years. Just 7-12% of funds were directed towards "grants and allocations" meaning they give far less percentage-wise than other scholarship funds such as the United Negro College Fund's average rate of approximately 50%.

Because the Freedom Alliance writes off expenses of up to ten million dollars per year before funds are allocated for these families, it seems the operation is far more efficient at creating white-collar jobs for right-wing foundation staffers and third party consultants, air travel, "caging services" or mailing list providers than it is at raising money for military families....

Ground Zero workers settlement unfair: judge | Raw Story

NEW YORK (AFP) – A proposed 657-million-dollar health settlement for some 10,000 people who worked at Ground Zero after the September 11 attacks was too low and must be renegotiated, a judge ruled Friday.

"In my judgment, this settlement is not enough," federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein said in New York after hearing two hours of testimony from plaintiffs in the huge case.

"There are some questions that have to be addressed," he added, calling for "additional negotiations to come up with a fair deal."

Last week, a preliminary deal was announced in which a government-funded insurance company would compensate more than 10,000 people claiming health problems from their work in the toxic debris of the World Trade Center, which was destroyed in the 2001 attacks.

The deal needs the court's approval to go ahead, as well as the backing of 95 percent of plaintiffs. They would have 90 days to review the proposal before making a decision.

Hellerstein singled out payment of lawyers' fees, which are expected to amount to some 200 million dollars or more -- about a third of the compensation package.

The judge said the insurance company, not the plaintiffs should foot the attorneys' bill. "The fees should be paid by the Captive Insurance" company, he said. ...

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Leaders in House Block Earmarks to Corporations - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders on Wednesday banned budget earmarks to private industry, ending a practice that has steered billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to companies and set off corruption scandals.

The ban is the most forceful step yet in a three-year effort in Congress to curb abuses in the use of earmarks, which allow individual lawmakers to award financing for pet projects to groups and businesses, many of them campaign donors.

But House Republicans, in a quick round of political one-upmanship, tried to outmaneuver Democrats by calling for a ban on earmarks across the board, not just to for-profit companies. Republicans, who expect an intra-party vote on the issue Thursday, called earmarks “a symbol of a broken Washington.”

...

The House ban came less than two weeks after the public release of an investigation by theOffice of Congressional Ethics laid bare the pay-to-play culture on Capitol Hill, particularly on the defense appropriations subcommittee. The report found that there was a “widespread perception” among the private-sector recipients of earmarks that giving political contributions to lawmakers on the panel helped secure the grants.

Even so, the House ethics committee on Feb. 26 cleared seven members of the defense panel — five Democrats and two Republicans — of accusations that they had improperly tied earmarks to contributions. The decision prompted protests from government watchdog groups, who said the standard the committee had set for ethical wrongdoing would open the way to further abuse of the earmark process.

The practice of inserting earmarks into spending bills, once used fairly sparingly by Congress as a way of imposing its budget priorities on the executive branch, has mushroomed, with lobbyists competing for the attention of committee members who control the money. Congress, which can award no-bid contracts at its discretion, doled out nearly $16 billion in awards last fiscal year.

Monday, March 08, 2010

Banks step up spending on lobbying to fight proposed stiffer regulations - latimes.com

WALL STREET

Banks step up spending on lobbying to fight proposed stiffer regulations

Expenditures jumped 12% to $29.8 million last year among the eight financial firms that spent the most to influence legislation.

By Nathaniel Popper

February 16, 2010

Even as the financial industry has sought to keep a low public profile, some of the country's largest banks have ramped up their spending on lobbying to fight off some of the stiffest regulatory proposals pending in Congress.

Lobbying expenditures jumped 12% from 2008 to $29.8 million last year among the eight banks and private equity firms that spent the most to influence legislation, according to data compiled from disclosure forms filed with Congress.

The biggest spender was JPMorgan Chase & Co., whose lobbying budget rose 12% to $6.2 million, enough for the firm to have more than 30 lobbyists working for it. Among other banks, spending on lobbying rose 27% at Wells Fargo & Co. and 16% at Morgan Stanley.

"I have never seen such a scrum of bank lobbyists as I have in the last year -- and I've worked on quite a few bank issues over the years," said Ed Mierzwinski, a lobbyist for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a coalition of state consumer organizations. "It seems like everybody is out of work except for bank lobbyists."

Much of the increase in spending on lobbying in 2009 came in the final three months of the year as Congress voted on financial reform bills. Many Washington observers say industry lobbying has been even more intense this year, as President Obama has proposed a new tax on big banks, caps on their size, and curbs on their investment in often lucrative but risky hedge funds and private equity funds.

"This is a watershed moment," said Scott Talbott, a lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents about 100 of the largest financial firms. "The industry will be changed forever after this year."

Bank lobbyists, however, are trying to limit just how much the industry has to change. They are fighting some provisions in the Obama administration's broad industry-overhaul proposal, especially a plan to create a consumer protection agency to oversee financial services.

The House passed its version of the legislation in December. But its prospects are uncertain in the Senate, where talks between Republicans and Democrats on a compromise version recently broke down.

At a hearing this month, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who has had a generally warm relationship with the financial community, lashed out at the "refusal of large firms to work constructively with Congress."

"Too many people in the industry have decided to invest in an army of lobbyists, whose only mission is to kill the common-sense financial reforms that we are working so hard up here to try to achieve," Dodd said. ...

Cronyism, Incompetence & Immorality