VIC Political Donations: LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL DEBATE Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Read the Hansard Transcript Here

Debate ensued.

Mr Viney (Labor) moved, that the debate be now adjourned.
Question — put and agreed to.
Read the Hansard Transcript Here


What do you do for money, honey?
There is a non-scandal brewing over the choice of words used to describe Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. Apparently, some talk radio hosts used a shocking term for her, and the liberal media jumped all over it like catnip. Cue the phony outrage:
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh make deeply offensive comments on a near-daily basis on their respective radio programs. Mostly, I don't feel the need to draw attention to them. But yesterday both men crossed into completely unacceptable territory. Followers of the health-care debate will know that Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu is high on the list of moderate Democrats who may ultimately vote against the bill. On Saturday, she was the second-to-last senator to lend her vote to a motion to open debate on the bill. Part of her motivation to consent came form a concession she successfully extracted from leadership $300 million to pluga gaping hole in Louisiana's budget, a state still suffering in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the botched emergency response to that crisis. The formula that determines federal Medicaid funding counted one-time post-Katrina aid to Louisiana as an increase in household income, thus causing the budget shortfall. The funds will help cover medical costs for the poor and uninsured, which, in part thanks to Katrina, Louisiana has in spades. Landrieu says that Louisiana's Republican Governor Bobby Jindal had explicitly asked her to pursue these funds. Sources on Capitol Hill confirm that Jindal had been pressuring Landrieu on the issue for months.
Such a deal shouldn't be a surprise. Like it or not, it's routine practice on Capitol Hill to trade your vote for something that helps your state. That's just the cost of doing business in D.C. And yet Landrieu's actions prompted Beck and Limbaugh to call her a prostitute. Beck likened her to a high-class hooker, saying, "She may be easy, but she ain't cheap." Limbaugh dubbed her "the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitutes." (Keep in mind though, that Landrieu still hasn't committed to voting for final passage of the health-care bill. She's openly declared that she still has reservations about the bill. Saturday's vote was simply about opening debate.)
What that makes here is a whore, not a prostitute. A whore has no scruples, and will do anything to get something from someone--hence, Landrieu is a whore for attention, and wants whatever she can get, and, like Lucy with the football, she'll take everything they give her and promise the moon and then give everyone the high hat. A prostitute has sex with people for money. Radio talk show hosts are whores for ratings. Everything they do is designed to create phony issues. Anyone who takes them seriously is not a serious person, in and of themselves.
The problem is, whore sounds worse than prostitute, and men can certainly be whores. Man-whores abound in places like Washington D.C. and you can scarcely go a few blocks without running over someone who is willing to whore themselves out to a lobbying firm, a head of state, a media company, or a tourist. We have a huge problem with men and women whoring themselves out for cash in Washington D.C. Don't hold your breath--no one cares and no one is doing anything about it.
It's never a nice thing to call someone names, however. It would be better if the good Senator simply acted like a responsible steward of her responsibilities and voted according to her own convictions. Did she have an internal struggle with the idea of voting to get money that might, in the long run, be better spent or not spent at all? Did she put self-interest ahead of the good of the country? She is there to represent her constituents; that she traded her vote to help them is what it is, and that is, a transaction for money. We sometimes put politicians in jail for that sort of thing, or perhaps I have that backwards. Can you trade your vote for money? Can you sell your vote as a U.S. Senator for $300 million dollars, even if none of it goes to you? Because, I can guarantee you, if $300 million dollars goes back to the state of Louisiana, a very small chunk of that is going to go right back to Landrieu is some way, either as a donation to her re-election campaign, as funds spent on something that benefits her business interests, or to hire people who will then owe her some sort of patronage favor.
All of her previous statements about honor and integrity are now the most laughable form of hypocrisy. She can be bought with legislation, and I guess that makes us a Republic.

You know, when people say that we really have gotten “change” since President Obama took over, I always laugh and call them names. Well, not really. But I do laugh. I do note that President Obama is maintaining a perfect “C” average. He is never really doing the right thing, never doing anything entirely wrong, and is still getting by on looks, rhetoric and speeches when he should be burying the Republican Party with answers, solutions, programs, and achievements.
I have noticed that, if you happen to point out that one of his friends is a corrupt individual, they will cut you to pieces and destroy you—shades of Karl Rove—and they will get away with it because we have little or no functioning or working media anymore:
A GOP congressional report accuses the White House of doing favors for Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and prominent ally of President Barack Obama.
The report was spearheaded by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The investigation also found evidence that D.C. schools chief Michelle Rhee handled “damage control” after allegations surfaced of sexual misconduct against Johnson, her now-fiancé. The probe was launched after an AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, was abruptly fired in June by White House lawyer Norm Eisen. Walpin, who was appointed to his position during the Bush administration, was pursuing allegations that Johnson misused some of the $800,000 in federal AmeriCorps money provided to St. Hope Academy, a nonprofit school he headed for several years.Among the accusations: AmeriCorps-paid volunteers ran personal errands for Johnson, washed his car and engaged in political activities. Walpin’s firing caused an uproar, with his defenders arguing that his removal was politically motivated and that Walpin was an effective watchdog who blew the whistle on the president’s friends and pet causes.
You have to be fair and cite the fact that Republicans in Congress acquiesced to far too much of what Rove did in their name, and you have to accept the criticism that they are without credibility on this issue. As I pointed out when Walpin was fired, they destroyed the man, personally and professionally:
When you hear Mr. Walpin’s side, you come away with a different view:
“Anybody who’s heard me speaking more than I’m used to speaking on radio and TV in recent days, obviously under great pressure from what happened would clearly know that I know what I’m saying and what I’m doing and I’m not incoherent,” Walpin told POLITICO. “There’s nothing confusing about malfeasance and there’s nothing confusing about what appears to be the fact that they terminated me because I was doing my job because the White House wanted to protect people who proclaim they are friends of the White House.”
Walpin said he did recall a board meeting where he became frustrated over “constant interruption…consistently breaking up my organization.”
Asked about the May 20 session, Walpin said, “It’s certainly possible at that meeting I had a bug and was tired. I can’t remember right now…All I can say is this is a weak reed to now be relying on.”
Walpin said he worked full-time in the Washington office for his first two years as inspector general and only began “teleworking” from New York after members of his staff convinced him to withdraw a resignation he tendered in January. He said he ran his plan to telecommute by the corporation’s acting CEO and general counsel, who had no objections.
“This is an afterthought,” Walpin said. “The problem isn’t that I’m not there. The problem is that I’m too much there.”
Walpin has alleged in recent interviews that his removal appeared to be in retaliation two reports he recently produced. One faulted a political supporter of Obama who is now mayor of Sacramento, Kevin Johnson, for misuse of federal Americorps personnel. Another criticized Americorps grants for participants in a City College of New York teacher training program.
Another man destroyed to protect a friend of the President. I wish it were not so, but this is commonplace in American politics. It is not new.
What is new is that many people seem to think President Obama is an annointed saint, sent to save us all. No, he’s just a President. They do things like this. They send their minions out to destroy lowly Poindexters and bureaucrats because of political expediency.
When Republicans do it, it is wrong. When Democrats do it, it is wrong. The only thing that changes is which side of the aisle that the mindless defenders will come from. We are inherently polarized, and reality and facts don’t seem to count for anything anymore. Change the “D” to an “R” and you see all kinds of righteous indignation replacing carefully parsed justifications. It’s merely intellectual dishonesty at work, all of it driven by a bloodlust for holding onto power.
So, what is Mr. Johnson, the former basketball star, accused of doing:
During the course of Walpin’s investigation into Johnson’s activities, according to the Grassley-Issa report, Walpin’s team received complaints that Johnson made inappropriate advances toward three young woman involved in the St. Hope program and that Johnson offered at least one of those young women hush money. In one particularly incendiary passage in the report, one of the girls who had accused Johnson of inappropriately touching her said she told federal agents that he offered to pay her $1,000 a month to keep quiet. Johnson’s spokesman vehemently denied the reports charges. “There is absolutely no merit to these politically-motivated allegations,” said Steven Maviglio. “They are categorically false. It is sad and unfortunate that the right-wing minority in Congress is playing politics with rehashed allegations that have been dismissed by professional prosecutors, the Republican U.S. Attorney, and federal officials at AmeriCorps from both political parties.”
And Ms. Rhee is accused of:
When the complaints of sexual misconduct were first made, Rhee was a member of the board of St. Hope. A former St. Hope employee told Walpin’s investigators that Rhee “learned of the allegations and played the role of fixer, doing ‘damage control,’” the report states.
A spokeswoman for the chancellor’s office dismissed the allegations in the report as old news that never amounted to criminal charges against Johnson. “Chancellor Rhee is mentioned in one paragraph of the 62-page Joint Staff Report,” said Jennifer Calloway. “It rehashes old allegations that have long since been dismissed and deemed meritless by local and federal law enforcement officials, including the Sacramento Police Department and the U.S. Attorney.”
Senator Grassley’s report goes on to say:
The report accuses the White House Counsel’s Office of withholding information from Congress and misleading investigators after Grassley and Issa questioned Obama’s methods and motives for removing Walpin. It also provides new details about the role several other Obama allies played in Walpin’s firing. The then-chairman of the CNCS, a division of AmeriCorps that Walpin was investigating, is Alan Solomant, a prominent Democratic fundraiser and Obama supporter who spoke with Eisen in the White House parking lot hours after hearing Walpin’s objections to a settlement of the St. Hope matter. Solomant shared his concern that Walpin was no longer fit for the job based on his alleged inability to answer questions during the day’s board meeting, the report found.
Eisen has claimed that the president’s decision to remove Walpin was the result of a thorough review of his performance and fitness to continue serving as an inspector general. He also has said that Walpin’s firing was unanimously supported by the CNCS board.
I have to say, firing ANY inspector general is going to bring in charges of favoritism, pandering, corruption or whatever else you can throw in there—sodomy and grandstanding also come to mind. You simply cannot just go and fire an IG without expecting some sort of recrimination. The problem here is, Walpin got dangerously close to an Obama confidante, and Chicago-style politics kicked in. Sorry, kids. That won’t play everywhere you try it.
20 November 2009
Premier Nathan Rees bans donations from developers
NSW Premier Nathan Rees has said the state ALP will no longer accept political donations from property developers and he's planning to entrench a ban on developer donations in law.
The move is widely seen as a belated attempt to clean up Labor's tarnished image in a state where relations between government MPs and property interests have been uncomfortably close, and where developers donations long ago overtook union fees as a key source of party funding.
Premier Rees has also announced a parliamentary inquiry into public funding for election campaigns.
Whether these moves will be enough to save the Rees government from defeat at the next state election is another question.
But the Premier may also be hoping to boost the Labor vote by introducing automatic enrolment, which should see more young people casting a ballot in 2011.
Rather than voters having to notify the electoral commission if they turn 18 or move house, data matching systems will be used to update the roll automatically.
Guests
Nathan Rees
NSW PremierPresenter
Peter Mares
Producer
Erica Vowles
Radio National often provides links to external websites to complement program information. While producers have taken care with all selections, we can neither endorse nor take final responsibility for the content of those sites.
Baltimore County Police Helicopter Foxtrot (by cooder70 on Flickr)
One of the earliest commenters on my site was someone professing to know the woman whose fiance proposed marriage to her by staging a dangerous, ill-advised, and costly stunt to propose to her. The young man, a relative of mildly powerful Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, and a politician in his own right, took twenty days to finally reimburse the city of Baltimore for the cost of using the officers and their helicopter, pictured above, to stage a fake drug raid in Baltimore Harbor.
Now, finally, over three and a half months since the August 7 incident, a Baltimore police sergeant is being charged:
Baltimore City police say a sergeant who authorized the use of the department's marine unit as part of a Maryland lawmaker's marriage proposal has been charged with misconduct.
On Aug. 7, police boarded a boat Delegate Jon Cardin and his fiancee were on with friends in the Inner Harbor and pretended to search for contraband until Cardin popped the question. A police helicopter flew overhead.
Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said Friday that an internal investigation into the event found that the sergeant, who was not identified, "improperly exercised his discretion" in the incident. He said the matter must go to a police trial board.
Cardin reimbursed police $300 for the incident, gave $1,000 to the department's mounted unit and has repeatedly apologized.
Ah, the privileges of youth and love. Power and money can get you out of anything in a filthy state like Maryland. Nothing will happen, except for the same slap on the wrist that young Cardin received. Thirteen hundred dollars is what to a wealthy political family? How about community service, probation, a night in the pokey, and a ten thousand dollar fine for wasting the efforts of so many law enforcement personnel? You can get into more trouble by calling 911 to ask for a cheeseburger than you can for scaring the living crap out of your fiance with angry drug cops.
I have repeatedly told the children that, since Father is no longer living in Northern Virginia at Seizure World, we're leaving. I don't care what it takes--we're leaving Maryland and we're not coming back. It's like living in a toilet, only with more screaming idiots, corruption, bad stores, stumbling drunks and less blue water.
Transparency International announced yesterday that New Zealand is the least corrupt country in the world. The same old "sheep jokes", a reference to the fact that there are 47 million sheep but only 4 million people.
Transparency International has just published their new Corruption Perception Index. The index measures the perceived level of public-sector corruption in 180 countries and territories around the world. The CPI is a "survey of surveys", based on 13 different expert and business surveys.
Corruption, both in private and public sectors, hinders economic development and/or recovery. It means a loss of money, time and energy with outcomes that fall short of legitimate expectations. The results of the survey speak strongly in favour of open Governmental process, business transparency and good communication practices to all types of audiences.
To my disappointment, Finland dropped from the last year’s results (1st to 6th) and Greece dropped even more (from 57th to 71st). It’s time to clean the act up. All of us in communications business can do better in ensuring that we help to uncover issues, solve them and move ahead.
This is not a question of intervention or non-intervention. It is about the responsibility of the president as head of state
It is hard to believe that only two weeks have passed since the President addressed the nation. He told us in earnest that he could not interfere in the KPK crisis because, in his words, the justice system "will be ripped apart."
That is no longer an issue. In less than a week, the Attorney-General and Police chief have by themselves destroyed what little trust and confidence the public held in the two institutions. The justice system has been badly crippled, if not mortally wounded.
These men have revolted Indonesians with their arrogance. They have discredited the hundreds of thousands of men and women that work for them. It is disgusting to think that the replacement for General Sutanto -- who was praised internationally -- -- could so quickly damage the Indonesian National Police.
Who was not sickened by the Attorney-General as he whined like some Old Testament snake. "I didn't want this job," he cried, "but it is God's will."
God's will? That drivel only works on peasants.
The prophecy has come true. The justice system is in disarray. As the Attorney-General and Police chief did their best to bury the justice system in filth, the Constitutional Court worked overtime to save it. The unimaginable became reality as the nation's top judges took the President head on.
At first martyrs, the victims of this Greek tragedy, Bibit and Chandra, have become national heroes.
But the biggest heroes are the people of Indonesia, for their unwavering call for an end to this debacle.
"Save our beloved KPK," they demanded, echoing the war cry of the 1,2 million strong Facebook group, Gerakan 1 juta Facebookers Dukung Chandra Hamzah dan Bibit Samad Riyanto.
The Indonesian people don't care about the integrity of the justice system or political protocol. "Just do it!" they demand.
Stand tall, my friends. There is as least once crotchety Pondok Indah expat who thinks you're just great.