Via Instapundit, ‘Agencies stiff-arm GAO on info’:

The investigative arm of Congress has been denied information repeatedly by various government agencies, indefinitely delaying lawmaker-requested probes, according to a letter obtained by The Hill.

The State Department, for example, initially balked at giving the Government Accountability Office (GAO) a list of sex offenders. Senate Finance Committee leaders asked GAO for a study on how many passport holders have not paid their federal taxes…

This really isn’t too surprising: I imagine that most members of this administration have passports.

…or are registered sex offenders.

I take the high road. 

Read More →

Background information available here: the executive summary is that the Inspector General of Americorps was fired earlier this year, under circumstances that appear at best to be part of a whitewash of an administration crony.  Senator Grassley (R) of Iowa has taken an interest in the case, and is making it clear that he’s not going away:

Republican Sen. Charles Grassley has blocked the ambassadorial nomination of Alan Solomont, currently chairman of the board of the government agency that oversees AmeriCorps, in retaliation for what Grassley says is the administration’s stonewalling of Congress over documents relating to the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin. Specifically, Grassley has sought, and been denied, information relating to the White House’s role in the decision to fire Walpin.

Solomont, a major Democratic donor, is chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which includes AmeriCorps. His term ends in October, and President Obama has nominated him to be U.S. ambassador to Spain. The nomination was approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week and now moves to the Senate floor — except that Grassley has placed a hold on it, meaning it will go nowhere until the senator’s objections are resolved.

Read More →

That headline was originally used by Republicans on the Hill, but it is accurate in every way.

The Democrats are working toward some “unintended consequences” that are very, very obvious and the effects are going to be disastrous for our economy.

As the House Republican Conference notes,

Press reports indicate that Finance Committee negotiators may require employers that do not offer coverage to pay for half of the cost of any Medicaid beneficiaries employed by the firm, as well as the full cost of any “low-income” subsidies for individuals with income up to three times the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four).

Groups from the Heritage Foundation to the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities have criticized the Finance Committee proposal, which could in practice lead to hiring discrimination against low-wage workers. For instance, a single mother would prove much less attractive to an employer from a financial perspective than a college-age student from a wealthy family—the former would cost the firm additional money in “fair share” contributions, while the latter would not.

In many cases, the cost of the “fair share” penalty may actually exceed the “pay-or-play” tax on businesses proposed in the House legislation. For instance, under the House bill (H.R. 3200) an employer who cannot afford to offer health coverage would pay $1,664 in tax penalties per year for a full-time worker making $10 per hour. If that employer were subjected to a “fair share” contribution equaling even half of the cost of insurance subsidies in the Exchange, the tax on that business would be significantly higher—as average subsidy amounts would total nearly $5,000 per year under most legislative proposals being considered. A “fair share” penalty of $2,500 would serve as a further disincentive to hire low-wage workers, as employers would be hit with high tax penalties on only a certain segment of the targeted workforce—individuals from poorer backgrounds.

As the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities noted, “the [“fair share”] proposal also could discourage the hiring of low-income people with disabilities who have no choice but to enroll in Medicaid” in order to obtain proper treatment for their disabilities.

All of this is obvious to people who’ve run businesses. But then the Democrats drafting this stuff wouldn’t know anything about that.

Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action.
- Ian Fleming, Goldfinger

Being an inquisitive sort, Dan Riehl went looking for other instances where the White House may have been interfering with the Inspectors General, and lo! - he found some.  Two more, both of which are involved executive branch officials allegedly interfering with investigations and one of which involved a sudden Walpin-like abrupt termination.

The second example (Gerald Walpin being, of course, the first) was Neil Barofsky, TARP IG, and while it’s the less immediately worrisome of the two newly-publicized incidents it’s also the more sensitive.  There aren’t many details on this available yet, but the dispute seems to be over how much oversight Treasury should have over the IGs assigned to monitor specific functions of the department - and how quickly and easily IGs should be given the documents that they need for their investigations.  The answer should be ‘almost none’ and ‘as quickly and easily as can be arranged’… at least, that’s my opinion.  More importantly, it’s also Senator Grassley’s.  Barofsky apparently hasn’t lost his job over this, though.  Yet.  The third firing was of Judith Gwynn (often noted as Judith Gwynne, which should tell you how well regular journalism is covering this story), and it’s… very interesting, as well.  She was an acting IG for the International Trade Commission (expect that to be brought up, usually with the table being pounded) who abruptly had her contract terminated right after Sen. Grassley’’s letter inquiring about an alleged physical assault* on her by an ITC staffer (expect that to be ignored for as long as possible) went to the White House.

Read More →

Senator Chuck Grassley (R, IA) was making a point during the Senate Budget Committee as they discussed the markup for the 2010 budget. He was trying to get Senator Kent Conrad (D, ND) to remember when he, Grassley, was in the driver’s seat and had back burnered an issue so that Conrad might get a favored resolution adopted two years ago. Grassley was hoping that now that Conrad’s party was in the lead, Conrad might remember a past courtesy and return the favor to Grassley whose party is now in the minority.

After the gentle reminder Conrad realized he was being nudged into acting with civility — something Democrats hate to do — and was being maneuvered into giving the Republicans a small bit of courtesy. Upon realizing he’d been had, Conrad said “Oh, you are good.” to which Grassley gave the classic that’s-what-she-said, man-dig at Conrad’s wife when he replied with a “Your wife said the same thing.”

Ouch.

Read More →