Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation For National and Community Service, was fired by President Barack Obama.
Posted on 06/17/2009 5:47:47 AM PDT by TexasCajun
President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.
A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.
Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation For National and Community Service, was fired by President Barack Obama.
Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
EVERY administration promises a “new kind of politics”. And it’s always the same ol’ same ol’. If the American people want a close look at the problem, they should find a mirror.
Soon, no one will even care. Obama has American by the tail and it taking every advantage on his power.
Another straw on the camel’s back. Keep it up Barry, the day of reckoning is approaching.
White House Counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint that had been lodged against Mr. Walpin by Mr. Brown, the U.S. Attorney, accusing Mr. Walpin of misconduct, and of not really having the goods on Mr. Johnson.
But this is curious given that Mr. Brown himself settled with St. HOPE, Mr. Johnson and his assistant, an agreement that required St. HOPE (with a financial assist from Mr. Johnson) to repay approximately half of the grant, and also required Mr. Johnson to take an online course about bookkeeping.
I really don't think so. The American people seem quite happy cheering the end of the republic, and the takeover of a handsome Emperor.
Could this be the real reason the WH is so panicked??
Anyone seen or heard from Michael Steel? ...or staunch Republican Colin Powell?
A complaint? Fired on a complaint? Hell, if that is all it takes, let’s get going!
When Nixon did this sort of thing, the press labeled it a “massacre.”
When Nixon did this sort of thing, the press labeled it a “massacre.”
In the latest development, Obama is claiming that Walpin is insane and dangerous. Thus, immediate dismissal was proper. Just like the Soviet Union used to do to get rid of opponents.
Declaring a political irritant insane and imprisoning him in a mental institution was the standard M.O. of the communist party bosses in the old Soviet Union. The Obama administration has adopted the first part of this stratagem and would likely employ the second part if they thought they could get away with it.
Exactly. Most of America didn't care that Obama is a Marxist. Many professing Christians didn't care about Obama's sickening record on abortion, or his affiliation with terrorists and bigots. He's black, he gave a good speech, and he appealed to their emotions. They examined him no more than they would a character in a TV show or movie. And now we're all going to pay for it.
bttt
DemocRATS don’t like “watch dogs”. What do you think the “Gorelick Wall” (that kept law enforcement agencies from sharing investigative intelligence and opened the way for the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers) was all about?
Why do you think members of the criminal element support and vote for DemocRATS?
“Obama has indicated willingness to end federal oversight of the Teamsters [& gets Hoffa endorsement]” ~ Robert Novak 2/23/08 [Crumbling Ohio Firewall]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1974928/posts
Obama Signals Less Union Oversight
by Robert B. Bluey (more by this author)
Posted 05/09/2008 ET
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=26440
The Labor Department’s seven-year effort to improve financial reporting and disclosure by unions could come to a screeching halt once President Bush leaves office.
Sen. Barack Obama’s support for ending federal oversight of the Teamsters is the clearest indication yet of how a Democratic administration would treat labor unions.
Both Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton wooed the Teamsters in hopes of securing its coveted endorsement.
But only Obama went so far as to say that government oversight had “run its course.”
The union endorsed Obama in February.
Since then, Obama’s ties to Teamsters President James P. Hoffa have grown stronger. Hoffa has traveled with Obama on the campaign trail and acted as a surrogate on trade issues for the candidate.
History of Corruption
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has a history of corruption problems dating back to 1959, when the Landrum-Griffith Act created many of the financial reporting and disclosure requirements in law today.
Within years of the act’s passage, Hoffa’s father was sparring with then-U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy over union corruption.
But it wasn’t until 1992 that the Department of Justice took the unprecedented step of creating a three-member independent review board to help the Teamsters root out its mob influence.
When the younger Hoffa became president in 1999, he made it a priority to end the government’s oversight.
The Wall Street Journal, which first reported Obama’s promise to the Teamsters, notes that the review board’s caseload has declined over the years. Still, many problems remain with local Teamsters outfits, according to the Labor Department’s union enforcement agency.
In the last seven years, the Office of Labor-Management Standards has secured more than 30 convictions of Teamsters officials for crimes ranging from embezzlement and wire fraud to theft and falsifying union records.
Two former officers of Teamsters Local 743 in Illinois were convicted in March as part of a 14-count criminal complaint alleging conspiracy, mail fraud, theft and embezzlement. Another conviction in April involved a former bookkeeper charged with embezzling $140,000 from Houston’s Teamsters Local 19.
Increased Enforcement
These types of cases aren’t limited to the Teamsters.
The Labor Department’s enforcement agency has secured 900 indictments and successfully prosecuted more than 850 individuals since 2001. During that time the office has a recouped more than $103 million for American workers.
This wasn’t always the case. The number of employees working for the Office of Labor-Management Standards fell from 392 in 1992 to just 260 in 2002 after years of cuts by the Clinton administration. Fewer employees meant fewer audits — forcing the office to rely more heavily on unions to police themselves.
Since taking office, Bush has restored many of the positions cut under Clinton to boost auditing and enforcement. As of 2006, there were 384 employees working for the office.
The lean Clinton years could return, however.
While other offices at Labor last year reaped budget increases from the Democratic-controlled Congress, the enforcement office saw its budget cut by $3 million.
And that wasn’t all. Congressional leaders and their Big Labor allies also tried to water down financial reporting requirements. A dispute arose last year over the revised LM-30 form that requires union bosses to “disclose possible conflicts between personal interests and the officer’s or employee’s duty to the union and its members.”
The Labor Department revised the rule to give the union rank-and-file more information about how their dues were spent. But union leaders such as John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO denounced the new reporting requirements as a “debilitating burden.”
With promises from Obama to ease union oversight, and endorsements from congressional Democrats for the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800), better known as the card check bill, Big Labor is salivating at the prospect of a return to “one-party government” in Washington next year.
Mr. Bluey, a contributing editor to Human Events, is director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He maintains a blog at RobertBluey.com.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.