0

TODAY'S TIMES

BORROWED OPINIONS
Unmuzzling the Federal Watchdogs

In a bipartisan rebuff of White House hubris, the House has overwhelmingly endorsed an overhaul of the inspector general process to insulate it from the waste, fraud and political meddling that are a hallmark of the Bush administration.

The vital measure would strengthen the independence of inspectors general so they can blow the whistle on internal agency abuses without fear of retribution. It sets seven-year terms and narrows the grounds for removing an inspector general to specified causes, not political vagaries. It also strengthens the budget resources of investigators, and creates an oversight council that would encourage professionalism but also investigate allegations about abusive inspectors.

The need for bolstering some 50 federal inspectors general has become a grim subtheme of the Bush administration’s arrogant massing of executive power. Most recently, State Department employees accused the White House-appointed inspector general, Howard Krongard, of blocking rather than abetting their efforts to uncover fraud and abuse in the contract billions being showered on Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Krongard denies serving as the administration’s lap dog against embarrassment. Critics accuse him of delaying investigations, censoring reports on security weaknesses in Baghdad and tipping off a fellow political appointee of a pending inquiry.

Other allegations of compromised investigations have been raised about inspectors general at the Commerce Department, NASA, the Smithsonian Institution and the Legal Services Corporation.

Clearly, the inspector general process, created in 1978 to protect the taxpayers’ interests, needs bolstering against the political meddling of this and future administrations. The House voted 404 to 11 for reforms, despite the White House’s threat of a veto. The Senate should show comparable determination to see fraud and abuse weeded out by in-agency investigators.

The inspector general problem is one more barn door to be closed on an irresponsible administration. The sooner Congress acts, the better for responsible government.

Rox said:
 
If we could override only ONE of Bush's vetoes (yes, I know there have been a whole FOUR of them), maybe congress will then have the balls to stand up and continue doing it.

But I'm a dreamer...
 
posted 773 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
It all comes down to votes, doesn't it; whether in the House (where the SCHIP veto looks to be upheld) or the Senate, it all comes down to votes. So long as the Administration, through party discipline or whatever else is available, can hold one house of Congress, any veto may be sustained. The IG issue could be one where the chances of an override exist, although it is premature to speculate, as the Senate is yet to take action.

I've always been of the mind, as an observer, that the President should only threaten a veto when he (to date) knows he can count on at least the votes to override in at least one house of Congress will exist.
 
posted 773 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Most definitely off topic:

Evidence that fall, indeed, is beginning (well, at least somewhere :-)).

http://seen.mainetoday.com/album.html?alb=15177
 
posted 773 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
So, the Inspector General process was to protect taxpayers' interests BECAUSE those we elect weren't doing an adequate job? They are so far into someone's pockets they're unable to recognize abuses? Then along comes the most corrupt administration and further erodes any protection. Now there's a threat to veto the overhauling and strengthening of this process? Why am I still shocked? Every time a new abuse is brought to light I ask myself how low can they go and why do I expect anything to be above suspicion with bushco in charge.
 
posted 772 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Linda, I don't know how long the IG system has been around (but it has for all my adult life), notwithstanding the assertion it was created in 1978. When I was in the USAF, there was an IG, for example. One thought on why it was created: with the proliferation of governmental agencies, it would take all the time of Congress, e.g., to investigate irregularities which happen all the time in all entities, governmental or private. While that might be, in the opinion of some, a desirable thing, it would be inefficient at best.

"Back in the day" the IG system functioned well, especially in cases of complaints concerning relatively "minor" incidents. Clearly, there has been a breakdown of the system, as reported. I speculate that this is due to the willful abuse of the politics of the system. I'm not familiar with the legislation, but if it is modeled on the way the Chairman of the Federal Reserve system is appointed, it would have a high probability of working to restore the system to what was originally envisioned.
 
posted 772 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Rox said:
 
Interesting, thought provoking, and a tad scary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhs64JnfC8c

I'd love to hear comments from the intelligent beings here. That's as opposed to comments from the knuckle draggers over there. :)
 
posted 772 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Ah, the old John Birch Society attack on the Council on Foreign Relations. I grew up hearing about the evils of the Council from my father, so to me there wasn't much new in the linked video other than the update of events and technology.

With that said, there are, of course, several things in the video which are true. There are several things in the video which may be true. There are other things therein which are not supportable by any facts, but which are built on inference and supposition, plus speculation, with reference to the facts which are true.

Some of what is true: there are many members of the Council on Foreign Relations which are the owners of the major media outlets. There is the bill passed by the Congress concerning the National ID card. There is the implanted chip in the new passports. 9/11 happened. There is a military action in Iraq. There exist the European Union and the African Union (the former created, as I recall, to create an organization by which Europe could economically compete with the U.S. in international trade). Yes, there is the family in Florida with the implanted chip.

Don't know, Rox; I've got to think a bit before going on with my postings on this. Pardon the skepticism on the video, but, substantively, "I've heard it all before"; many times.
 
posted 772 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
From memory;

The Council on Foreign Relations was the successor to a group put together by Woodrow Wilson towards the end of WWI as a "think tank" to come up with ideas on how to deal with Germany once the war was over. The idea of the League of Nations, among other things, was a product of the group. (BTW, as memory serves, there were other ideas generated, including opposition to the punitive measures taken against Germany as the result of winning the war, which MIGHT have avoided the rise of Adolph Hitler to power and the European part, at least, of WWII).

At a point in the early 1920s, members of the working group decided it beneficial to formally organize, and the Council was formed. It has served as advisors to every administration subsequently in the U.S., as well as to other governments. While nonpartisan in nature (see the video about the Rockefeller family as an example), its advice has been sought more by Democratic administrations, although there are members of the Council serving in the current administration, e.g., Dr. Rice.

It goes without saying that the influence of the thinking of the Council played a role in the formation of the United Nations towards the end of WWII. This, in particular, was the focus of the attacks of the John Birchers in the 1950s and early 1960s, in particular the U.N. as the harbinger of a "One World Government" as the foundation therefor.

Perhaps a bit more later; duty and a luncheon appointment call.
 
posted 772 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
I think it's very scary and much of it I believe. Look at the 28%ers and how willingly they accept their rights being removed. They ridicule anyone who doesn't demand we give up our rights so the "terrorists" can be defeated. It is said overandover and people do believe it. The people who pay NO atention combined with the 28%ers have made it pretty easy! The video said a line that was very telling about this One World Government making the American Constitution obsolete on behalf of the "investment class." We can see it happening and we watch the people nod their heads and agree it must be done, in fact lament how long it was ignored. Completely fooled into submission.
 
posted 772 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Well, the lunch appointment is delayed; so a bit more.

As mentioned above, both parties have requested and received the advice of the Council on many occasions. Thus, its apparent influence. However, the influence of the Council has, from time to time, waned. I recall my father, whose dislike of the Kennedy family could not be easily quantified, grudgingly saying early in the JFK administration that "Well, at least he's not involved with the Council on Foreign Relations". I'm not too sure what that meant then, but I later learned that when JFK took office, he was in essence ignorant of the Council.

To give equal time to members from other administrations: Former SOS Albright is a member, and I believe serves on the Board of the Council; both Bill and Hillary Clinton are members. I'm sure I could resort to "the google" and come up with other members, but y'all are very good at that yourselves. :-)

Now, are there "men behind the curtain" who would dearly like to achieve the end of a "One World Government" and total control over all the people? Hell, yes. Most of them are involved in the world of international business conducted by multi-national corporations, IMHO. However, thinking about the current administration, I would suggest that at least some members thereof are much more interested in establishing an American hegemony in the world, both political and economic, with the "One World Government" idea being an anathema to their ambitions.

BTW, this discussion (all by me so far, sorry) brings to mind the visit of RMN to China. Adopting the "conspiracy theory" approach, I would be foolish to not advocate the real reason he went; it had nothing at all to do with trying to end the Viet Nam war through establishing diplomatic relations with the one country which appeared to have some influence over North Viet Nam; rather, it was with an eye to opening the burgeoning potential market represented by the Chinese people to his U.S. corporate masters. Right? :-)
 
posted 772 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Here y'all go; a link to one of several net posts on the North American Union featured in the video. Warning; strong stomach required to read, as Ann Coulter stares at the reader the whole time.....

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965
 
posted 772 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Rox said:
 
I meant to get back here and comment on VT & Linda's comments, but I got sidetracked by life. Good job by both of you! VT, I was aware of some of the things you mentioned and am never eager to jump into conspiracy theories, but I do keep in mind that they are usually based on facts, however small an insignificant.

One World Government reminds me of PNAC, and I lean toward believing it's all one in the same. Once there's a One World Government, someone has to lead it. I shudder to guess who that would be. Or I should say who all, as it wouldn't be just one person, and would eventually lead to U.S dominination. If it didn't, we'd quit!

Re: Coulter...yet another REAL shudder. I'll check out your link as soon as I answer an email.
 
posted 772 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Rox said:
 
Long email. LOL

Very scary, indeed, VT. And of course, all politicians from all sides have to be in on this or it won't work. Not that I think this is only the NeoCons. I guess we'll know for sure when we have a Democrat in the WH in 2010, and the plan continues on schedule.

The only other option would be for Bush to stay in office. That is, if their timetable is to be adhered to. That IS a possibility. OR, if Dems are dragging their heels on this, we know elections can be "won" when they really aren't.

The proof is in the pudding. If this is nothing more than another conspiracy theory, time will prove it. On the other hand, time will also prove it's more than a theory.

Not sure there's much we can do. They've done a good job of keeping us unaware and uninformed.
 
posted 771 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 

Search