Today’s sleaze is Panetta. The Wall Street Journal has a story with troubling implications for U.S. President Barack Obama’s new administration, Glenn R. Simpson writes:
The White House’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency has earned more than $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008, with some of the payments coming from troubled banks and an investment firm that owns companies that do business with federal national security agencies.
Mr. Panetta received** **$56,000 from Merrill Lynch & Co. for two speeches and $28,000 for an Oct. 30, 2008 speech for Wachovia Corp. Both firms suffered big losses last year and were acquired by larger banks.
Mr. Panetta reported receiving a $60,000 “Governmental Advisor Fee”** **from the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents the shipping industry. The group lobbies the federal government regarding terrorism laws that affect shipping.
If AIG contacted me today to give a talk about decision theory and applications, and paid me $30,000 for the talk, you think I’d say no, because they’re in major trouble?
Heck, the US Gov has a MASSIVE debt. If the IRS owes you money, will you let it keep the dollars to help them??
I don't have much problem with him taking the speaking fees from the failing institutions, that was a bad decision by the institutions, and for Panetta it was probably business as usual. I do have a problem if he recently received payments in any fashion from groups that can benefit from policy he makes in his new role. We've got to get a handle on pay-to-play, as our reps seem to be working more for corporate America than for the good of the country or taxpayers.
Obama beat the crap out of Clinton for being an insider. So what does he do, appoint all insiders. Even sleazy ones feeding at the trough and ones that don’t pay taxes. He hires people like Panetta who co-mingle with questionable banks and takes laundered lobbying fees aka speaking fees. It’s business as usual in the worst most sickening way. So much for change. I’m just really disgusted with it all.
What exactly is wrong with someone who gave speeches for a bank and a brokerage firm becoming head of the CIA? Is it the amount of money? (If so, you’re casting a wide net since tons of folks have made big bucks on the speaker circuit) Is there some connection between the substance of what the CIA does and the business of these firms? I don’t see that. By your logic, Cheney should never have been VP since he made piles of money from a business that was in the thick of govt issues both before and during his stint as VP.
Panetta was not a good choice, regardless of that story.
But, then again, U.S. “intelligence” has been an utter joke for 60 years (except for some high tech stuff), the CIA is nearly irrelevant and the Pentagon and State Department are outsourcing intelligence and spying to the private sector anyway, so whatever …
What I don’t like about it is that is is sleazy. These insider guys are connected like spiderwebs with lobbyists, money and corruption. I half expect more sleaze to come out of Panetta’s deal once the press gets a hold of it, but I hope not. Why do CEO’s get clipped at $500K when former government people can make $700k giving “speeches?” Why not clip speeches (quasi lobbying) at $500K also?
Obama beat the crap out of Clinton for being an insider. So what does he do, appoint all insiders. Even sleazy ones feeding at the trough and ones that don’t pay taxes. He hires people like Panetta who co-mingle with questionable banks and takes laundered lobbying fees aka speaking fees. It’s business as usual in the worst most sickening way. So much for change. I’m just really disgusted with it all.
I don't disagree with any of this. It IS business as usual, and all these people with various problems fully expect(ed) to get in, their expectation is the deference that they all give each other. All these noms, (even Carolyne Kennedy in her recent senate seat bid) did not expect tax or income issues (not to mention the more personal ones) to be stoppers with their peers. The difference is that Obama put an even lager spotlight than normal on himself and his administration as different, clean, etc. That campaign strategy worked well because most Americans long for a more honest and open government. The black eyes that he is getting now are his own doing for campaigning in such a way and then expecting all that to be forgotten on day one. Even if one disagreed with his politics, this is one kind of "change" that most hoped for, so I can see why your disappointment is not just a partisan reaction.
I think the key here is that Panetta should have investigated the finances of the companies who contacted him to speak, made a decision about whether to accept said speaking engagement based on the possibility that they might need government assistance down the road, knowing that he himself might someday be a part of government again. Does that pretty much cover it?
Maybe he was also working as a consultant for Wells Fargo, in which case, it makes sense for him to precipitate things
Either way, he probably wouldn’t have known much about the companies financial situations. Besides, if a company is in trouble and asks for help, you’re not going to do it for free.
What he charged for the job is irrelevant, since it’s not unethical. The thing that matters here is whether he is the man for the job he was picked to do. I don’t know. Don’t know him. Some say no. That’s the concern. Not what he charged…
I think the key here is that Panetta should have investigated the finances of the companies who contacted him to speak, made a decision about whether to accept said speaking engagement based on the possibility that they might need government assistance down the road, knowing that he himself might someday be a part of government again. Does that pretty much cover it?
tell me you’re kidding? the OCC and the Fed couldn’t even tell that the big banks were on the brink and you expect Leon Panetta and Google to figure it out ahead of a speaking engagement?
Please try to be a wee bit objective and make a wee bit of sense.
