Category: insider corruption

Categories
insider corruption

Jailing Kids for Cash

Once again, I’m back to talking about Wilkes-​Barre, Pennsylvania. Not long ago, I told you about a Wilkes-​Barre woman who was awarded a judgment against the city for the official harassment she suffered after she petitioned the government. This time it’s local judges jailing young people in order to pad their own pockets with cold, hard cash.

For years, youth advocates argued that Judge Mark Ciavarella was, as they say, “way harsh.” Now, two Luzerne County judges, Ciavarella and Michael Conahan, have pled guilty to receiving $2.6 million in payoffs for forcing youthful offenders into private lock-ups.

Conahan was responsible for closing down the county-​run juvenile prison and helping two private companies get lucrative contracts to house juvenile offenders. Ciavarella kept the Up the River hotel full of “clients.”

Who were they? What did they do?

Well, Hillary Transue lampooned her high school’s assistant principal on MySpace. Ciavarella sentenced her to three months.

Kurt Kruger says that he “was completely destroyed” after his conviction for being a look-​out for a shoplifter. Kruger claims he was innocent. After being sent to a prison camp for four months he dropped out of high school.

There are many more such stories. How many? Well, at least $2.6 million dollars’ worth.

The best we can say for these recent stories from Wilkes-​Barre is that they provide examples of an timeless truth: Political power cannot be trusted.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability insider corruption

Washington On Display

Our rule-​makers can’t follow their own rules. President Obama sets a new standard, forbidding lobbyists from being hired on in the White House. Then he promptly gives himself a waiver because, lo and behold, he just needs a certain lobbyist.

When politicians stand on principle, it’s usually so that principle can’t get up.

We have a Treasury secretary, one Timothy Geitner, who didn’t pay his taxes … well, not until he was picked to be Treasury secretary. A Washington Post headline called Geitner “too big to fail”; the U.S. Senate confirmed him.

Then there’s Roland Burris, the new U.S. Senator from Illinois. He now admits that he didn’t tell “the whole truth” when he testified before the Illinois House panel trying to impeach then-​Governor Rod Blagojevich. Of course, Burris continues to deny what he is admitting.

Burris had been asked directly about being blagojeviched to raise money to get his seat in the U.S. Senate. But Burris said nothing at the time about being asked by the governor’s brother to raise funds. Burris also conveniently forgot to mention that he, in fact, had tried to raise money for the governor. Unsuccessfully.

Burris needs to go, and he’s far from alone. Think of Charles Rangel’s wrangled perks, his tax problems, his network of rent-​controlled apartments.

Instead, all these masterminds will stay in power, allegedly to “fix” our economy.

But they’re the ones in need of “fixing.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption term limits

That Bloomin’ Blatherer Bloomberg

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, once a man of the people, claimed his billions immunized him from the pitfalls of politics-​as-​usual. Who could bribe him, right?

But it seems power seduces even without payola.

New Yorkers passed a two-​term limit on city officials. But Bloomberg wants another term, and couldn’t be bothered taking the question to voters yet again. So he convinced the city council to water down the law so both he and they could run for a third term.

So, why did Bloomberg overthrow the voters’ decision? Not because he’s seduced by power. No. Because he’s so darned indispensable. In an economic downturn, the city needs a financial wizard like him to steer things.

Except this is the same maestro who dug New York’s current financial hole. The city is looking at a $7 billion budget deficit in a couple years if nothing changes. And according to a new report by the Citizens Budget Commission, the average cost of city employees has increased 63 percent since 2000. Average pay has jumped from $52,000 a year to $69,000. Then you have benefits, which ballooned from $13,000 a year to a whopping $38,000 a year.

Bloomberg can’t say no to unions, so taxpayers suffer. He can’t say no to a power grab, so democracy suffers.

Gee whiz, who but Bloomberg could give us all this suffering?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption

Renting Rangel

Rent control is said to reduce rents. Economists disagree. Only some rents remain low, compared to others, in cities with rent control. If the cities foreswore rent control, most rents would tend to be lower.

There are other reasons to oppose rent control. The policy increases social stratification, as sociologists put it. The people with controlled rents become an elite, and they feed off of insider connections and … well, corruption results.

Congressman Charles Rangel is a classic example. He’s one of New York City’s representative to the U.S. House of Representatives, and he chairs the powerful Ways and Means Committee. And yet he nabbed four rent-​controlled apartments in New York, thereby gaining a huge advantage over many other New Yorkers. He then failed to report his success at the rent control game, as required.

Rangel proved quite the source for corruption stories last year. He had numerous tax difficulties, failing to report this and that. He wrangled $80,000 from his campaign treasury to his son, for doing website work. The son did scant work. After getting a cool million from an oil company for his Charles B. Rangel Center at City College, he then fought for a tax break for that company.

The list goes on.

It’s been famously said that you can’t buy politicians, only rent them. Well, guess what form of rent control I support.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption

Bad-​Time Bonuses

People often complain about executive pay. I don’t. What other people get paid isn’t my business.

But after we discovered that many of the major companies bailed out by our government went on to give their execs bonuses, I changed my tune, a bit. How did failed companies and failed businessmen deserve bailouts in the first place? After being bailed out of their mess, the failed execs earned bonuses how? For bringing home the bacon from politicians?

This problem is not limited to private enterprise at the public nipple.

Take DC Metro. This governmental organization, tasked with providing public transit in the District of Columbia and adjacent areas, is in deep financial woes, even worse than many businesses. The transit authority threatens deep cuts in service.

And yet, somehow, they just managed to hike the salaries of management, not to mention the wages of hourly workers.

This is the reaction of a concern when its rising costs are not being matched by income gains?

It seems insane. And yet, this is government, so we at least have a ready explanation. And, being a metropolitan service district rather than a city or county government, it doesn’t have many of the usual checks in place. From the people.

If you are looking for a cause to get involved in, I bet your area’s metro district would get your blood boiling. Why not look into it?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
insider corruption too much government

Get Real, Mr. Rael

Political ads are not much different from normal, commercial ads. Effective advertisements usually make it pretty clear what the hoped-​for outcome is.

Buy a widget? Patronize a business? In politics, it’s “Vote for X” … or A, B, or C.

Last political season, in New Mexico’s Bernalillo, Sandoval, and Valencia counties, ads ballyhooed a Rio Metro expansion project. They very clearly concluded by telling voters to “Make a Difference on November 4th,” and offering up a certain website that also promoted voting for the tax increase to expand the transit system.

So why did Lawrence Rael of the political entity responsible for Rio Metro deny the obvious? “We’re not saying ‘vote for the tax’ as an advocacy committee would do,” he explained. “We’re just simply saying, ‘Look, this issue is on the ballot … Here’s what it’s about.’”

Oh, get real, Mr. Rael.

The reason for his reticence? Governments in a republic aren’t supposed to influence voters but be influenced by voters. That’s the point of an election, where our tax dollars ought not be on either side.

Paul Gessing, of the Rio Grande Foundation, wrote in the Albuquerque Journal, “Having advocates for these proposals working on the taxpayer dime obviously tilts the advantage in the direction of higher taxes. But giving the pro-​tax side the additional advantage of a significant advertising budget is simply too much, and is truly unfair.”

No wonder government keeps growing, eh?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.