PadminiArhant.com
We need to fix our economy
January 30, 2009
President Obama and his administration are trying to address this serious economic crisis at home.
It takes the entire nation to get involved in the rescue operation.
Let us come together and do everything possible to revive the economy.
Please standby for some important guidelines and suggestions for economic recovery on www.padminiarhant.com.
Also, focus on resolving California’s budget crisis will be presented on the website shortly.
Meanwhile, please follow through the request from President Obama’s administration to create awareness and collective effort required to survive the crisis.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
———————————————————————————–
Last year, America lost 2.6 million jobs. This week, some of our biggest companies announced plans to cut tens of thousands more.
The economic crisis is deepening, but President Obama and members of Congress have proposed a recovery plan that will put more than 3 million Americans back to work.
You can learn more about how the plan will help your community by organizing an Economic Recovery House Meeting.
Join thousands of people across the country who are coming together to watch a special video about the recovery plan. Invite your friends and neighbors to watch the video with you and have a conversation about your community’s economic situation.
The economic crisis can seem overwhelming and complex, but you can help the people you know connect the recovery plan to their lives and learn more about why it’s so important.
Sign up to host an Economic Recovery House Meeting the weekend of Friday, February 6th.
The President’s plan passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday. But if it’s going to move forward, we need to avoid the usual partisan games.
That’s why supporters are opening their homes to talk with neighbors and friends about how the plan will work — and what it means for their community.
The video will outline the basics of the plan and how it will impact working families. It will also include answers to questions from folks across the country. Invite your friends and family to watch the video, discuss the plan, and help build support for it.
Don’t worry if you’ve never hosted a house meeting before — we’ll make sure you have everything you need to make it a success.
Take the first step right now by signing up to host an Economic Recovery House Meeting:
http://my.barackobama.com/recoveryhost
Time and again, you’ve demonstrated your commitment to change. Now you can help America move in an important new direction.
Please forward this email to your friends and family, and encourage them to get involved as well.
Thank you for your hard work,
Mitch
Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America
Conflict of Interest
January 28, 2009
Secretary of State
By Padmini Arhant
Secretary of State position has been filled and the appointee, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has assumed office.
Did the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate pay any attention to the substantial facts and evidences provided by citizens and news editorials on this matter as well as other cabinet post appointments?
Apparently not and that appears to be the interesting focus for concerned electorate.
—————————————————————————————————-
Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 35 mins ago 01/27/09
WASHINGTON – Former President Bill Clinton earned nearly $6 million in speaking fees last year, almost all of it from foreign companies, according to financial documents filed by his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton .
The documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that $4.6 million of the former president’s reported $5.7 million in 2008 honoraria came from foreign sources, including Kuwait’s national bank , other firms and groups in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia , Mexico and Portugal and a Hong Kong-based company that spent $100,000 on federal lobbying last year.
Executives at many of the firms that paid honoraria to Bill Clinton have also donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation , according to documents it released last year as part of an agreement with Congress on Hillary Clinton’s nomination as secretary of state.
That agreement was aimed at preventing the appearance of any conflict of interest between the ex-president’s charitable organization and his wife’s new job as the United States’ top diplomat.
In addition to Bill Clinton’s income from speaking fees, Hillary Clinton reported joint holdings of between $6.1 million and $30.3 million in a blind trust as well as cash, insurance and retirement accounts worth between $1 million and $5.2 million.
Hillary Clinton made between $50,000 and $100,000 in royalties from her 2003 memoir "Living History."
Bill Clinton earned between $100,000 and $1 million in royalties for his 2004 autobiography "My Life," the documents show. The Clintons reported no liabilities.
All senior officials in the Obama administration are required to complete a detailed disclosure of their personal finances, including spouse and children, which is updated yearly.
The two men selected to serve as Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretaries of state, Jacob Lew and James Steinberg , also filed financial disclosure forms.
Lew, a former Clinton administration official who recently headed Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit, reported 2008 salary income of just over $1 million along with numerous investments, including between $50,000 and $100,000 in State of Israel bonds .
Steinberg, another former Clinton administration official who recently was a professor at the University of Texas, reported receiving $35,000 in 2008 for foreign speaking engagements, including three before Japanese media firms and one before the Confederation of Indian Industries in New Delhi.
The most Bill Clinton got from a foreign source was $1.25 million for appearing at five events sponsored by the Toronto-based Power Within Inc., a company that puts on motivational and training programs around North America , according to Hillary Clinton’s submission.
For one Power Within speech alone, delivered in Edmonton in June 2008, Clinton was paid $525,000, the most for any single event that year. For one event, he got $200,000 and for three others he received $175,000 each, the documents show.
The Hong Kong firm, Hybrid Kinetic Automotive Holdings, paid Clinton a $300,000 honorarium on Dec. 4, 2008. Twenty five days later, on Dec. 29, a man listed as the company’s chief financial officer, Jack Xi Deng, made a $25,000 cash donation to the Virginia gubernatorial campaign of Clinton confidant Terry McAuliffe , according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Hong Kong firm paid at least $100,000 in 2008 to lobbyists on immigration issues.
The other foreign honoraria Bill Clinton received in 2008 are:
$450,000 from AWD Holding AG , a German-based international financial services company.
$350,000 from the state-owned National Bank of Kuwait . The Kuwaiti government donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation , according to the foundation’s disclosure.
$300,000 from Value Grupo Financiero SA de CV, a Mexico -based financial holding company , whose chief executive officer , Carlos Bremer Gutierrez, is one of the Clinton Foundation’s leading donors. Gutierrez donated between $250,001 to $500,000 to the foundation, according to foundation’s documents.
$250,000 from Germany’s Media Control Gmbh, which bills itself as the world’s leading provider of entertainment data and was founded by Karlheinz Koegel, who contributed $100,001 to $250,000 to the Clinton foundation.
$200,000 from Malaysia’s Petra Equities Management on behalf of the Sekhar Foundation run by Malaysian multimillionaire Vinod Sekhar who donated between $25,001 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its documents.
In addition to the foreign earnings,
Bill Clinton made just over $1 million from domestic speaking engagements, including $250,000 from MSG Entertainment , $225,000 from the National Association of Home Care and Hospice, $200,000 from the United Nations Association , $175,000 from the ING North America Insurance Corp., $125,000 from the Rodman and Renshaw Capital Group and $100,000 from the Hollywood Radio and Television Society.
————————————————————————————————————-
Voice of Concern: By Padmini Arhant
I suppose, now it must be clear to America why despite the impressive combined earnings by the then Senator and now newly appointed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s request for personal donation was not met .
The impression might be what could possibly a small, diminutive, frail and fragile individual’s support or the lack thereof do to powerful nominations and subsequent confirmation.
It was already proven during the election when several requests and demands were placed for endorsement of the Presidential candidates.
Otherwise, would any ordinary citizen be sought after relentlessly by the candidates for endorsement in a high profile and vigorously contested political battle?
Further, Supreme force representative’s subservient manner should not be translated as an inferior or a weak personality in any shape due to intimacy with natural phenomenon.
Regardless, the stark contrast between the powerful on earth and those representing the power of the universe is,
The latter are courageous in speaking the truth and standing up for justice and peace wherever and whenever it applies.
History is testimony that Prophets and messengers were subject to incredible endurance tests including death for some as in the case of Lord Jesus Christ.
In the ancient era, Prophets and Messiahs had to prove their identity and worthiness by performing wonders or miracles.
It ranged from bearing the cross and resurrection to life and possessing witnesses for the ability to walk on water.
Now, in the new millennium the expectation of the virtuous could still be to exhibit magic moments by spitting fire, moving mountains and relevantly excavation of economy from deep recession heading towards Great Depression.
Such expectations by those considering themselves extraordinary are not surprising.
In fact, up until recently the utterance of God and any discussions related to the highest grace was argued as undemocratic by calling for elimination of such discourse in public square.
Anyone challenging the might of the mortals is frequently dismissed as a questionable character and their concerns for humanity invalidated through defiance per recent demonstration of Cabinet posts confirmation.
All those bound by ethics and compliance of common law in a democracy rejecting the plea with presentation of facts and evidences against Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as well as other appointees are in denial of the highest authority.
Hence, the comment during the Radio talk show on “Free Palestine” about public displays of prayers and worships as meaningless because of selective embracing of God by political figures.
Thus, forcing one to arrive at a conclusion that even “Almighty God” is a fair game in politics.
It goes to prove that Cabinet posts in any administration could be picked and chosen by the privileged members of a political party and some outsiders through virtue of their association with previous administrations leaving no opportunities for the deserving aspirants outside the circle in the so-called democracy.
Then why bother wasting taxpayers’ dollars with senate hearing and confirmation process if the purpose is meant to be a mere formality?
With foreign governments and sources donating to Clinton foundation and honorarium for his speeches, should American electorate consider such generosity by these entities an act of pure benevolence for humanity and not have Clintons reciprocate in return?
Alternatively, are these donors so magnanimous that they are involved in a great humanitarian effort whilst ignoring the plight of the population in their own backyard?
Washington was to be changed and shaken up to give way to new political system.
Is shuffling the cabinet posts among the group consisting of those demanding party favors a fair selection process?
Does democracy really have a chance when Power is still the dominant force crushing the will of the republic?
The lawmakers awestruck by candidates despite controversial background moved forward to fill positions in fulfillment of their obligations and responsibilities with no regard for due process.
New administration was sworn in with the pledge to America to change Washington corroded with corruption, cronyism and power politics into new era guided by the constitution and democratic values.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Promising "a new era of openness in our country," President Obama signed executive orders Wednesday relating to ethics guidelines for staff members of his administration.
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Obama said.
Has there been a breach of constitutional law in the Cabinet post appointments?
It is worth examining, as it appears to be the case according to some concerned citizens who are also legal experts in the constitutional law.
————————————————————————————————————-
Source: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/25/is-hillary-clinton-unconstitutional/ -
Thank you.
Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?
Posted by Ilya Shapiro, Previous: There’s No Change Here
It appears that there may be genuine constitutional problems with her expected nomination. To wit, Article I, section 6, clause 2 reads:
Via http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_6_2.html
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
That is, under this “Emoluments Clause,” members of Congress are expressly forbidden to take any appointed position within the government which was created or whose pay has been increased during their current term in office.
Now, a January 2008 executive order, promulgated in accordance with a statute from the 1990s that addressed cost of living adjustments for certain federal officials, raised the Secretary of State’s salary, thus constitutionally prohibiting any then-serving senator who remains in office from taking charge of Foggy Bottom. (Sen. Clinton’s current term began in January 2007 and expires in January 2013.)
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Source: http://volokh.com/posts/1227548910.shtml
Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause:
There’s been talk about whether Sen. Hillary Clinton is disqualified from a position as Secretary of State by the Emoluments Clause:
Adam Bonin’s Daily Kos blog has a bit more on this, but the short version is that a Jan. 2008 executive order, promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute, raised the salary of the Secretary of State, so the Emoluments Clause question is in play.
I very recently read an article by John O’Connor on the subject, The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist Intruder in a Federalist Constitution, 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 89 (1995), so I asked him what he thought.
Here’s his answer (some paragraph breaks added); please note that I have some comments at the end of this post that express a somewhat different view:
It seems to me that there are two questions regarding whether the Emoluments Clause to the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, § 6, cl. 2) renders Senator Hillary Clinton constitutionally ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State:
(1) whether Senator Clinton is now ineligible for appointment; and
(2) if Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment, whether that ineligibility may be cured by the so-called “Saxbe Fix,” whereby the Secretary of State’s salary is reduced to the salary in effect before Senator Clinton’s current Senate term began.
I think it is beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State. I also believe that the better construction of the Emoluments Clause is that the “Saxbe Fix” does not remove this ineligibility.
The Saxbe Fix got its name because the Nixon administration sought to eliminate Senator William Saxbe’s ineligibility for appointment as Attorney General by reducing the salary of that office to the level that existed before Senator Saxbe’s appointment.
The Emoluments Clause provides that “[n]o Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.”
As I understand it, 5 U.S.C. § 5303 provides for an automatic annual increase in certain federal salaries, including the salary of the Secretary of State, unless the President certifies that an increase in salaries is inappropriate.
The salary of the Secretary of State has increased during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, which does not end until 2012.
Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office “have been encreased” during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of “the time for which [she] was elected, or until January 2013.
I do not believe it affects the analysis that the salary increase occurred as a result of an Executive Order or that the statute creating these quasi-automatic salary increases was enacted prior to Senator Clinton’s current term.
By its plain language, the Emoluments Clause applies when the office’s salary “shall have been encreased,” without regard to exactly how it was increased.
Indeed, an early proposed draft of the clause included language limiting it to an increase of emoluments “by the legislature of the U[nited] States,” and was later revised to encompass any increase in emoluments.
It is worth noting that several Framers thought, without much explication, that the clause was too lax as initially drafted. The clause also does not require that a Senator or Representative have voted for the increase.
This focus [on] a past act of increasing emoluments, rather than on the emoluments existing at the time of appointment suggests to me that the clause’s best reading is that an act of increasing emoluments renders members of Congress ineligible for appointment [to] the office until their respective congressional terms end.
In addition, one of the central theses of my law review article on the subject is that the purpose of the Emoluments Clause is disserved by the Saxbe Fix.
The records of the federal constitutional convention indicate two purposes underlying the Emoluments Clause:
(1) general anti-corruption, whereby Congress might conspire with the President to create offices, or to give existing offices exorbitant salaries, with the understanding that a Member of Congress would be appointed to the office; and
(2) limiting the size, importance, and reach of the federal bureaucracy.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
Republic Action: By Padmini Arhant
It is important for the people of the Republic to awaken and ensure that elected representatives honor commitments towards their constituents and the nation by respecting the constitutional law and abide by the common rules and regulations meant for all regardless of societal hierarchy.
Indeed, it is a huge disappointment that electorate is relevant only during the electoral process.
Once the ballots are cast and power entrusted to the lawmakers as the people representatives, the abuse of power is a reflex action with a tendency to discount and dismiss the will of democracy particularly during federal appointments and other legislative matters.
Any functional democracy requires that apart from transparency and accountability, the office of Presidency and Congress act with entire integrity in recruitments by not violating the trust of the people and the constitution governing the nation.
Additionally, rather than personal choices for various cabinet posts contributing to ethical issues, the real change in Washington would be depicted if the cabinet posts were advertised for direct public appointments reflecting the acknowledgement of talent and caliber among the eligible electorate.
Is it too late to review the appointments that have already taken place?
Action is anytime better than inaction to confirm the power of democracy.
Shouldn’t we all know now from the past eight years’ legacy?
The voice of America is the only legitimate force that can bring about any Positive Change in every citizen’s life.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
P.S. Please review the insightful presentation “Secretary of State Nomination” on www.padminiarhant.com for complete comprehension.
Radio Show Update
January 24, 2009
Schedule Update:
January 24, 2009, Air time - 8.00 - 10.00 P.M(PST)
Category: Current Events
Topic: Wall Street Bailout
Discussion:
What should financial institutions do with taxpayers’ bailout?
Why haven’t the financial institutions invested funds to stimulate economy?
What is public demand from them and the legislators?
——————————————————————————————————————-
January 25, 2009, Air Time 2.00 - 4.00P.M (PST) - (5.00 - 7.00P.M EST)
Topic: Free Palestine
Discussion:
1. How can we help to expedite independent state for Palestinians free of Israeli blockade, occupation and aggression?
2. What should the new administration do to be a trustworthy partner and unbiased peace broker in the Middle East conflict?
3. How can we help Israeli population elect a moderate government in early February favoring peace and diplomacy over military action for their national security and sovereignty?
——————————————————————————————————————
January 30, 2009, 120 minutes 2.00P.M - 4.00P.M - Cancelled due to restrictions on segments at frequent intervals.
Category: Current Events
Topic: Economy and Health Care - Please refer to blog post on www.padminiarhant.com for details and I invite you to post comments.
What should the new administration do for you and the economy?
How do we fix the Health Care system?
———————————————————————————-
Podcast live : http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Padmini-A
Guest Call-in-number: (646) 727 -3778
I invite you all to participate in the public forum and share your concerns, ideas and knowledge.
Your comments and thoughts are welcome in the political discourse.
Let us keep democracy alive and help our new President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in rebuilding our nation.
Your participation is a huge encouragement and always appreciated - Thank you again.
Look forward to the session.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Radio Show Schedule
January 22, 2009
I will be doing a live radio show for 120 minutes from 2.00P.M to 4.00P.M. (PST) on the following days:
January 23, 2009 Friday from 2.00 - 4.00 P.M (PST) to accommodate listeners from all time zones.
Category: Current Events
Topic: Corporate Bailout
Discussion:
What should financial institutions do with the taxpayers’ bailout?
Why have they not utilized those funds to stimulate economy?
What is public demand from them and the legislators?
———————————————————————
January 30, 2009, 120 minutes 2.00P.M - 4.00P.M
Category: Current Events
Topic: Economy and Health Care
What should the new administration do for you and the economy?
How do we fix the Health Care system?
———————————————————————————-
Podcast live : http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Padmini-A
Guest Call-in-number: (646) 727 -3778
I invite you all to participate in the public forum and share your concerns, ideas and knowledge.
Your comments and thoughts are welcome in the political discourse.
Let us keep democracy alive and help our new President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in rebuilding our nation.
Look forward to the session.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
P.S. My apologies for not being able to schedule a convenient time on January 21, 2009. I am aiming to provide as much time as possible through whatever avenues available in getting us back on our feet.
Your participation is a huge encouragement and always appreciated - Thank you again.
Radio Show
January 20, 2009
I will be doing a live radio show for 60 minutes from 9.00P.M to 10.00P.M. (PST) TODAY JANUARY 20, 2009
Podcast live : http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Padmini-A
Guest Call-in-number: (646) 727 -3778
Topic: Presidential Inauguration of the 44th President of the United States.
Your comments and thoughts are welcome in the political discourse.
Look forward to the session.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
P.S. A convenient time will be scheduled to accommodate listeners from the other time zones particularly EST starting tomorrow January 21, 2009.
Presidential Inaugural Invitation
January 20, 2009
To: President-elect Barack Obama
Vice President-elect Joe Biden
With great humility and honor, I accept and acknowledge your personal invitation as well as the formal invitation from the Presidential Inaugural Committee to attend the historic 56th Presidential Inauguration currently held in the nation’s capitol, Washington D.C.
I apologize for not being able to participate in the historic event even though I had every desire to be present with millions of citizens excited to share their overwhelming joy and happiness on this important day.
Please trust me; I am with you right from the moment of swearing in to the last event of the day.
I take this opportunity and convey my heartfelt congratulations on your extraordinary feat as the 44th President of the United States on this day January 20, 2009.
Wishing you phenomenal success in all your endeavors.
Best Wishes
Padmini Arhant
Renew America Together
January 19, 2009
Today is an important day as we commemorate the outstanding contribution of the civil rights leader and icon of peace DR. Martin Luther King Jr.
Dr. King remembered as a trailblazer with his dream to transcend race that has long been an impediment for social, economic and political progress. This year is particularly significant, due to the long awaited promise of America scheduled for delivery upon swearing in of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama to the office of Presidency on January 20, 2009.
Dr. King’s legacy span across the spectrum and focused on unity, equal rights and opportunities for all. Seldom, nations have sons like Dr. King to lay their life in pledge of support for humanity. It is truly an honor to be part of the nation with a hero like Dr. King paving the path for those human beings deprived of civil liberties and daring them to rise to the occasion.
If Dr. King were to be present today though he lives among us in spirit, the remarkable speech about his dream for a United America turning into reality with a bright and promising new President Barack Obama will serve as living testimony that change does not occur unless brought upon collectively.
As a nation, we ought to be proud of the great achievement with the election of the new President Barack Obama. Although, a milestone reached after several decades, there are still enormous tasks ahead in resolving racial prejudice, economic prosperity and social justice for those struggling at the bottom of the demographic data.
Dr. King is the beacon of light to courageously expel darkness in human minds that segregated one another, polarized the society and marginalized selective members of the human race. It is evident from history that freedom and equality for all comes with sacrifices by few and serve as the cornerstone for further developments in the future.
It is imperative now to get involved in activities for the common goal granting identical rights and privileges for all. We all have certain responsibilities as citizens and acknowledging them as the primary objective guaranteed to bear fruits for a better future.
Dr. King eloquently stated,
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
As much as there are unprecedented challenges and crisis ahead, we have brilliant prospects with the new Presidency of Barack Obama and Vice President Jo e Biden.
Deep in our heart, we believe that we shall overcome the trials and tribulations as a unified force of the human race representing the great United States.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Secretary of State Nomination
January 15, 2009
By Padmini Arhant
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a job interview as the nominee for one of the most important Cabinet positions in the White House Administration.
The hearing as such did not appear to be a formal environment for the hiring and approval of the crucial Cabinet post representing the U.S. Foreign policy requiring reparation and image restoration.
Ironically, Senate committee with members on both sides of the aisle euphoric with the designate, conducted the session in a manner of formality rather than a serious protocol in assessing the eligibility, experience or the lack thereof and particularly the conflict of interest arising from the nominee’s personal and political background.
In the absence of any hard hitting, nail biting moments given the present highly volatile world environment, the hearing as described by the media a love fest … delivered an overwhelming majority of 16-1 vote in favor of the nomination.
Often, when a democratic process subsidized with lack of objectivity poses an imminent threat to the credibility of such hearings. Notwithstanding, the irrelevance of the job criteria involving national and international interests revealed in similar hasty decisions.
Senate performance of this nature legitimately leads to frustration and disappointment of the voters expecting rigorous interrogation of the candidates vying for major representation in matters like foreign policy.
HTTP://WWW.DEMOCRATANDCHRONICLE.COM/ARTICLE/20090115/OPINION04/901150346/1041/OPINION
JANUARY 15, 2009
U.S. SENATE SHOULD BE TOUGHER DURING CABINET CONFIRMATION PROCESS
“Senators must ask hard questions of these nominees and demand that they create an environment of scrupulousness and openness in their departments.
As for Clinton, it’s legitimate to worry that foreign governments will try to use support for former president Bill Clinton’s foundations to curry favor with her.
There are safeguards in place. But are they sufficient? Is accountability what it should be for all the Cabinet posts? The Senate must be tough overseers during these important hearings.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————————-
It is important to examine the genuine concerns across the globe, as Secretary of State is the initial representative and emissary of U.S. foreign policy currently under siege in the devastating crime against humanity with Israel’s determination to wipe Gaza of the map.
Contradictory to Senate Committee view of Senator Clinton’s entitlement to the high profile yet delicate ambassadorial position, the world has a different perspective of Senator Clinton’s nomination that deserves attention.
Prior to proceeding with the thoughts and presentations by various groups both nationally and internationally, it is vital to define the Secretary of State position.
UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE
FROM WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA – THANK YOU.
The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs.
The Secretary is a member of the President’s Cabinet and the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in line of succession and order of precedence.
HISTORY -
Particularly in the early years of the republic, the post was regarded as a natural stepping-stone to the Presidency.
Secretaries of State who later occupied the White House included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren and James Buchanan.
FUNCTIONS
The Secretary also serves as a principal adviser to the President in the determination of U.S. foreign policy and,
In recent decades, has become responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas, excepting certain military activities.
As the highest-ranking member of the cabinet,
The Secretary of State is fourth in line to succeed the Presidency.
Federal law (3 U.S.C. § 20) provides that a presidential resignation must be accomplished by written communication from the President to the Secretary of State. This has occurred once, when President Richard Nixon resigned in August 1974 via a letter to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
National and International Radar Image of Senator Hillary Clinton:
Conflict of Interest:
1. “Clinton urged to reveal more on husband’s donors
By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer Sharon Theimer, Associated Press Writer – 47 mins ago – January 13, 2009 – Thank you.
Extract of the article:
WASHINGTON – Hillary Rodham Clinton, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for secretary of state, rejected calls Tuesday for more details about donors to her husband’s foundation, saying she has revealed enough to avoid even the hint of conflicts.
An Associated Press review found that Clinton stepped in at least a half-dozen times on issues involving businesses and others who later gave to the charity.
The AP reported Tuesday that Hillary Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband’s foundation. The AP obtained three pieces of the correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act.
The letters and donations involve pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications and energy interests; all said their donations to the Clinton foundation had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton’s previous work on their issues.
Hillary Clinton wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in February 2004 expressing concern that changes to competitive local exchange carrier access rates could hurt carriers such as New York-based PAETEC Communications.
PAETEC’s chief executive is Arunas Chesonis, whose family and charity later contributed to the Clinton foundation.
Sarah Wood, executive director of the Chesonis Family Foundation, was invited by a part of the Clinton Foundation — the Clinton Global Initiative — to join the initiative after it was established in 2005, Wood said Monday.
The Chesonis family personally paid $15,000 for Wood’s membership in CGI in September 2007, and when membership fees rose to $20,000 in 2008, the Chesonis foundation paid them in March, Wood said.
PAETEC spokesman Christopher Muller said PAETEC had no involvement in the Chesonis donations.
PAETEC asked Clinton to intervene with the FCC, he said.”
——————————————————————————————————————————————————
2. Source: Washington Post Editorials
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802791.html
Wednesday, November 19, 2008; Page A20
If Mr. Obama chooses Ms. Clinton, he’ll get Mr. Clinton — two for the price of one, you might say.
And this is where critics of the Clintons, and even their supporters, have legitimate concerns.
Some of these are backward-looking, regarding the hundreds of millions of dollars that Mr. Clinton has raised for his presidential library and foundation, including from foreign governments, foreign individuals and others with an interest in foreign affairs.
We have long argued that presidents, sitting or retired, should not be permitted to collect this sort of secret cash for their libraries.
The imperative for disclosure is even greater in the case of the Clintons because of Ms. Clinton’s continuing involvement in public life.
Among those reported to have given $1 million or more are Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates; the Saudi royal family gave $10 million.
If Ms. Clinton is to serve as the nation’s chief diplomat, the nation is entitled to know what foreign interests have donated generously to help her husband.
Even more complicated is how the Clintons could pursue their parallel careers if she were to become secretary of state.
Mr. Clinton would have to give up his lucrative foreign speechmaking and deal-brokering.
It is difficult to see how Mr. Clinton’s work with a nongovernmental organization could continue alongside Ms. Clinton’s work for the U.S. government.
When Mr. Clinton exhorted a foreign government to provide funding or cooperation, would he be carrying the implicit support of the U.S. government?
Consider Mr. Clinton’s September 2005 trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining tycoon Frank Giustra, who has given $130 million to the Clinton foundation.
The two men attended a banquet with Kazakh strongman Nursultan Nazarbayev; within a few days, Mr. Giustra had obtained preliminary agreements for his company to buy into uranium projects controlled by the state-owned uranium agency.
Neither President Obama nor, if it comes to that, Secretary of State Clinton needs headaches like these.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Defiance In Complying With National Interests:
SENATE PANEL BACKS CLINTON AS SECRETARY OF STATE
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer Anne Flaherty, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jan 15, 12:37 pm ET
“Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Foreign Relations Committee’s top Republican, has proposed that Bill Clinton’s foundation reject any overseas contributions and take other steps to improve transparency.
Clinton rejected Lugar’s ideas, contending that her agreement to publish an annual list of the foundation’s donors and alert ethics officials to potential conflicts of interest already goes above and beyond any ethics regulations.
Bill Clinton’s charity, which financed his presidential library in Little Rock, Ark., and efforts in dozens of countries to reduce poverty and treat AIDS, has relied on sizable donations from foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia.”
——————————————————————————–
OBJECTIVITY:
REASONS WHY HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD NOT BE BARACK OBAMA’S SECRETARY OF STATE
POSTED BY: TOBY HARNDEN, US EDITOR ,TELEGRAPH, CO. U.K.
Posted in: Foreign Correspondents
Here’s why:
1. A central appeal of Obama’s candidacy was that his election would mark the end of the Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush years. Hillary Clinton in such a senior position, along with all the other Clinton retreads, blows that out of the water.
2. Bill Clinton would move, once again, to centre stage. Do you think Obama could control him?
3. Specifically, Bill Clinton’s past and future business dealings abroad and donors to his Foundation could be a huge problem and potential source of scandal.
4. Hillary Clinton proved herself a poor manager during her campaign.
Managing the huge foreign policy bureaucracy is a much bigger task.
5. Would she be a team player? She campaigned extensively for Obama and cannot be criticised for not doing her duty in the general election. But it was her duty as a Democrat and it was in her own interests to do so.
It doesn’t mean she’s suddenly lost all her doubts about Obama.
6. It would create a significant alterative focus of power within the administration but outside the White House - a dangerous combination.
7. No recent Secretary of State has been a realistic prospect for president.Clinton clearly (and understandably) still harbours presidential ambitions.
Everything she does will be calculated on her part with that possibility in mind.
8. There will be many former Clinton aides in senior positions in the Obama administration.
The danger of dual loyalties is obvious.
9. Clinton herself made the argument - accepted by many primary voters - that Obama was not ready to be commander-in-chief but that she was prepared to answer that 3am phone call.
Is there any evidence she’s changed her mind? If she believes she knows best then the chances of her freelancing as Secretary of State become very real.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
SOURCE: HTTP://2PARSE.COM/?P=1433
WHY HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD NOT BE SECRETARY OF STATE
Hillary Clinton is not the best candidate for Barack Obama to choose as his Secretary of State.
There are a few obvious obstacles to placing Hillary in this position:
• She made a big issue of her disagreements with Obama on foreign policy during the primary campaign, going so far as to call his policies “naive” and “irresponsible.”
•
• Now she would be expected to carry out these policies and not undermine them.
•
• She has her own foreign policy team which she could easily fill the State Department with, starting with Richard Holbrooke;
•
• It would be a fight for Obama to get a significant number of his own foreign policy team at State;
•
• In addition, there is bad blood between the Hillary camp and a number of Obama’s advisors - especially those who worked initially for the Clintons - complicating who could be appointed where and possibly the working relationships.
•
• Given these two above factors, there is a considerable chance that Obama could face a struggle in enacting his foreign policy agenda - and
•
• Clinton and her team of insiders could plausibly mount a bureacratic struggle undermining Obama’s agenda - much as Dick Cheney and his team were able to undermine Colin Powell.
•
• She and her husband have always been surrounded by drama - from Arkansas to the White House to her primary campaign - in stark contrast to the No-Drama-Obama team.
•
• She caused a serious international incident during the primary season causing both our strong allies to criticize her and our enemies to complain to the United Nations;
•
• everyone makes mistakes, but in this instance she seemed to choose to cause this incident to gain political capital - not the best attitude for a potential rival who would be acting as your Secretary of State.
•
• Her husband and his Clinton Foundation make for a huge amount of potential conflicts.
•
• She has often seemed physically uncomfortable with Obama and Obama has often seemed less certain of himself around her.
————————————————————————————————————-
IMPACT ON FOREIGN POLICY:
WHY THE OBAMA/CLINTON PATH TO MIDEAST PEACE WILL FAIL
Michael Lerner, Thursday, January 15, 2009
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun Magazine: a bimonthly Jewish and Interfaith Journal of Politics, Culture and Society. He is chair of the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives ( www.spiritualprogressives.org), author of 11 books and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco.
There is little chance peace can be brought to the Middle East unless it is imposed on both Israel and Palestine by the international community.
Calling for an international peace conference and an immediate cease-fire ought to be the first foreign policy priority for the Obama administration.
Instead, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s remarks to the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday committed the Obama administration to a path that is certain to fail as it has throughout the past several decades.
She stressed three elements of her position:
– The United States remains committed in its support of Israel, which guarantees that it cannot play the role of "honest, neutral broker of peace."
– The United States restates that it will not negotiate with Hamas until it recognizes Israel (which Hamas has already said it would not do, though it has been willing to negotiate a cease-fire agreement with Israel and announced that it is prepared to negotiate a new agreement that could last for 20 or 30 years).
– The Obama administration will work to bring the two parties together for peace negotiations.
This position is at odds with the views that Obama articulated when he was seeking the Democratic nomination.
At that point, he made clear that we should negotiate with Iran and Syria, which both pose more serious threats to American interests than Hamas.
The difference, of course, is the Israel lobby to which Obama and Clinton have repeatedly paid obeisance.
That lobby, representing the most hard-line elements in the Jewish world but also tens of millions of Christian Zionists who support the militarist perspective in dealing with Arabs and Palestinians, has insisted as a matter of faith that American politicians promise not to deal with Hamas.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the lobby insisted that the United States not negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization.”
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Perspective Analysis:
By Padmini Arhant
It is evident from the diverse national and international opinion that Senator Hillary Clinton’s nomination hearing for Secretary of State position carried out with little significance on major issues such as –
Conspicuous conflict of interest,
Nominee’s defiance to recognize the fact,
Projecting autonomy on foreign policy matters proven counterproductive while undermining the stated policy of the incoming administration.
Pursuit of militaristic agenda via smart power dominating peace and diplomacy creates opportunity to question motive.
Senator Hillary Clinton successfully evaded controversial issues with a complimentary response to the committee members and failed to provide solutions or strategies for any on-going crisis, thus proving her lack of experience.
The preliminary victory is predominantly due to excessive lobbying within the Senate by members emphasizing more on material than substance per national telecast of the hearing.
United States is dealing with many crises at home generating a leadership void for international conflicts. The American electorate invested energy, hope and trust in the new administration to avert further catastrophes.
The bipartisanship displayed in the hearing is appreciative though it would serve better during legislation of economic stimulus package or health, energy, education and environment issues.
Anything to benefit the people is always welcome and worth the time and effort.
However, in matters concerning millions of lives and their future around the globe the representative of the United States new government must reflect and possess a track record as the champion of peace, an advocate of non-violence and a trustworthy partner for all nations during international crisis.
Failing that, any attempt to restore and recapture the image it once had is a farfetched dream with remote possibilities of that turning into reality.
Senator Hillary Clinton is impressive in other ways in performing her legislative tasks for her constituents in the great state of New York. The Senator’s career as an attorney is praiseworthy.
Nevertheless, in the appointment of the Secretary of State, Senator Clinton’s existing background associated with,
The Clinton foundation and Clinton Global Initiative,
Recent rhetoric yielding her the reputation as a polarizing figure during the unsuccessful Presidential bid in 2008 as well as.
Being an enthusiastic supporter of military action including nuclear weapons raises serious credibility issue and further jeopardizes the prospects for United States to be a major player in resolving complex international crises.
The future of humanity is best under the guidance and leadership of those seeking peaceful solutions against war and terror.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
Communication
January 15, 2009
From: Jill Biden
To: Padmini Arhant
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2009 10:24:25 AM
Subject: Our partner for change
Padmini –
We’re just 11 days away from the start of an important journey that will move our country in a new direction.
But as we all prepare for that journey, we can’t forget our commitment to help Hillary Clinton retire her campaign debt.
I got to know Hillary on the campaign trail, and I saw firsthand what a vital role she played in Barack’s election. And as our soon-to-be Secretary of State, Senator Clinton is working hard now to help Barack implement policies that will help us meet the global challenges we face.
Will you help us honor our promise and support our friend Hillary Clinton by making a donation of $100 or more today?
During the general election, Hillary was a tireless advocate for Barack, traveling across the country and uniting people in our movement for change.
As a wife and a mother, I know the kind of sacrifice she made as a candidate, an advocate for Barack and Joe, and now as a member of the cabinet. She made those sacrifices because she believed in the change that we all worked so hard for.
Now, we need to help Hillary focus on the challenges that she will face as Secretary of State. You can show your support and make sure the hard-working individuals and small businesses who were a part of Hillary’s campaign effort are paid for their hard work.
Make a donation of $100 or more now to help one of our vital partners for change:
http://donate.barackobama.com/hillary
Thank you for everything,
Jill
—————————————————————————————————
From: Padmini Arhant
To: Jill Biden info@barackobama.com
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Our partner for change
Dear Jill,
Thank you for your email.
Due to unfortunate circumstances and bad economic situation, it is difficult to make any commitment towards such cause.
Hope you understand the predicament.
Please accept my apologies for the delay in my response and inability to comply with your request.
Best Regards
Padmini
________________________________________
Banks Bailout – Accountability
January 11, 2009
It’s been a quarter since the banks bailout. The purpose of the bailout was to stimulate the economy by relieving the financial markets from liquidity crisis.
At least, that was the explanation offered by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve at the time of request.
They demanded that Congress approve the bailout to a tune of $700 billion as an emergency measure to avert the collapse of the financial market.
There were few stipulations to the approval of the bailout. The general expectation was to revive the housing market with a moratorium on foreclosures and overhauling of the existing loan programs to assist homeowners with affordable payments and ease the decline of the housing prices nationwide.
The other alternative to the housing market crisis was to utilize the bailout drawdown towards restructuring of the mortgage backed securities by allowing default homeowners dealing with foreclosures to refinance at the existing lowest market rate for a fixed period of two years, substituting the amount in the new economic stimulus package by President-elect Obama.
Despite financial bailout by taxpayers, the economic situation is deteriorating with the current unemployment soaring to 7.2 percent exceeding the Depression era. The criticism entirely directed towards government intervention in the revival process.
However, it is worth remembering that lack of oversight and accountability led the financial institutions to a dire state in the free market economy. The corporate executives as the beneficiaries have been responsible for the dysfunctional financial system even though none of them held accountable thus far.
The current administration assured taxpayers that financial bailout targets liquidity in the credit market, housing market decline particularly foreclosures, buy-back mortgage securities held as major liabilities on the banks’ financial reports and ease their burden to facilitate lending to homeowners and small businesses.
If the strategy followed through, it could have reduced the heat on the economy and set the pace for recovery.
In the absence of commitment by the banks, it would be appropriate for taxpayers to demand that the financial institutions release the funds towards lending and contribute to the economic stimulation as agreed to by them.
Failure to adhere to the agreement will result in the blockade of the remaining $350 billion that would be appropriated towards economic stimulus proposal by President-elect Obama.
In addition, the taxpayers’ also reserve the right to demand that the beneficiaries of the bailout return the earlier withdrawal currently hoarded for their undisclosed agenda with interest higher than the market rate.
It is time for checks and balances on the drawdown of $350 billion to various financial institutions.
Checks and Balances:
Have the objectives been achieved?
Is there an oversight committee on the financial bailout as agreed to the taxpayers?
Did the banks provide details of the secured amount to the taxpayers or the oversight committee?
Please be sure to read the articles presented below as they confirm the reality.
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
————————————————————————————————————
First and foremost, the beneficiaries of the bailout are:
As per http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/bailout_half_gone/2008/11/12/150364.html
Street Talk – Thank you.
Who Got Bailout Money So Far?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:09 AM
"The Treasury Department’s $700 billion bailout plan, also known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), is one of the main U.S. tools to address the financial crisis.
The Treasury Department on October 14 set aside $250 billion of the program to buy senior preferred shares and warrants in banks, thrifts and other financial institutions.
Half that money was allocated to nine big banks, the Treasury Department has said.
Another $38 billion has since been earmarked for regional or small banks, according to statements from individual banks.
On Monday, the department announced its single-biggest TARP investment — $40 billion in American International Group — which the government said would not come from the $250 billion bank capital program.
———————————————-
The TARP has so far committed the following funding:
AIG $40 billion
JPMorgan $25 billion
Citigroup $25 billion
Wells Fargo $25 billion
Bank of America $15 billion
Merrill Lynch $10 billion
Goldman Sachs $10 billion
Morgan Stanley $10 billion
PNC Financial Services $7.7 billion
Bank of New York Mellon $3 billion
State Street Corp $2 billion
Capital One Financial $3.55 billion
Fifth Third Bancorp $3.45 billion
Regions Financial $3.5 billion
SunTrust Banks $3.5 billion
BB&T Corp $3.1 billion
KeyCorp $2.5 billion
Comerica $2.25 billion
Marshall & Ilsley Corp $1.7 billion
Northern Trust Corp $1.5 billion
Huntington Bancshares $1.4 billion
Zions Bancorp $1.4 billion
First Horizon National $866 million
City National Corp $395 million
Valley National Bancorp $330 million
UCBH Holdings Inc $298 million
Umpqua Holdings Corp $214 million
Washington Federal $200 million
First Niagara Financial $186 million
HF Financial Corp $25 million
Bank of Commerce $17 million
TOTAL: $203.08 billion
—————————————-
INSURANCE COMPANIES
In addition to the TARP program’s $40 billion capital injection into AIG, the Federal Reserve is providing the company with up to $112.5 billion in separate loans and funds for asset purchases.
Aid to the huge insurance company came after counterparties and rating downgrades forced AIG to post large amounts of collateral for its credit derivatives positions.
Some other insurers are interested in cash infusions, but must own a thrift or bank in order to qualify under the terms of Treasury’s current capital injection program.
—————————————————————————–
BANKS, LENDERS
The TARP program set a November 14 deadline for smaller banks to apply for capital injection funds remaining in the pool of $250 billion. The deadline will be extended for non-publicly traded banks.
The government’s preferred shares will pay dividends of 5 percent annually for the first five years and 9 percent after that until the institution repurchases them. Participating banks must comply with Treasury restrictions on executive compensation, which limit tax deductibility of senior executive pay to $500,000.
They require bonuses to be "clawed back" if earnings statements or gains are later proven to be materially inaccurate and prohibit "golden parachute" payments to senior executives.”
—————————————————————–
The following article has the response for all of the above issues:
December 23, 2008.
Economy in Crisis: By Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press, Washington – Thank you
Banks mum on bailout spending – They Refuse to provide Accounting
Elizabeth Warren, the congressional watchdog, appointed by Democrats—
“It takes a lot of nerve for banks not to give answers, she says.”
Think you could borrow money from a bank without saying what you were going to do with it?
Well, apparently when banks borrow from you they don’t feel the same need to say how the money is spent.
After receiving billions in aid from U.S. taxpayers, the nation’s largest banks say they can’t track exactly how they’re spending it. Some won’t even talk about it.
“We’re choosing not to disclose that,” said Kevin Heine, spokesman for Bank of New York Melon, which received about $3 billion.
Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMORGAN Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money, said that while some of the money was lent, some was not, and the bank has not given any accounting of exactly how the money is being used.
“We have not disclosed that to the public. We’re declining to,” Kelly said.
The Associated Press contacted 21 banks that received at least $1billion in government money and asked four questions:
How much has been spent?
What was it spent on?
How much is being held in savings? And,
What ‘s the plan for the rest?
None of the banks provided specific answers.
“We ‘re not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking,” said Barry Koling, a spokesman for Atlanta, Ga.-based SunTrust Banks, which got $3.5billion in taxpayer dollars.
Some banks said they simply didn’t know where the money was going.
“We manage our capital in its aggregate,” said Regions Financial spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Ala.- based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5billion it received as part of the financial bailout.
The answers highlight the secrecy surrounding the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which earmarked $700 billion – about the size of the Netherlands’ economy – to help rescue the financial industry.
The Treasury Department has been using the money to buy stock in U.S. banks, hoping that the sudden inflow of cash will get banks to start lending money.
There has been no accounting of how banks spend that money.
Lawmakers summoned bank executives to Capitol Hill last month i.e. November 2008, and implored them to lend the money – not to hoard it or spend it on corporate bonuses or junkets or to buy other banks.
But there is no process in place to make sure that’s happening, and there are no consequences for banks that don’t comply.
“It is entirely appropriate for the American people to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in private industry,” said Elizabeth Warren, the top congressional watchdog overseeing the financial bailout.
But, at least for now, there’s no way for taxpayers to find that out.
Pressured by the Bush administration to approve the money quickly, Congress attached nearly no strings to the $700 billion bailout in October, 2008.
And the Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent.
“Those are legitimate questions that should have been asked on Day One,” said Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., a House Financial Services Committee member who opposed the bailout as it was rushed through Congress.
“Where is the money going to go to?
How is it going to be spent?
When are we going to get a record on it?”
Nearly every bank the AP questioned – including Citibank and Bank of America, two of the largest recipients of bailout money —– responded with generic public relations statements explaining that the money was being used to strengthen balance sheets and continue making loans to ease the credit crisis.
A few banks described company-specific programs, such as JPMorgan Chase’s plan to lend $5 billion to nonprofit and health care companies next year.
Richard Becker, senior vice president of Wisconsin-based Marshall & Ilsley, said the $1.75 billion in bailout money allowed the bank to temporarily stop foreclosing on homes.
But no bank provided even the most basic accounting for the federal money.
Some said the money couldn’t be tracked.
Bob Denham, a spokesman for North Carolina-based BB&T, said the bailout money “doesn’t have its own bucket.”
But he said taxpayer money wasn’t used in the bank’s recent purchase of a Florida insurance company.
Asked how he could be sure, since the money wasn’t being tracked, Denham said the bank would have made that deal regardless.
Others, such as Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Carissa Ramirez, offered to discuss the matter with reporters on condition of anonymity.
When the AP refused, Ramirez sent an e-mail saying:
“We are going to decline to comment on your story.”
Most banks wouldn’t say why they were keeping the details secret.
“We’re not sharing any other details. We’re just not at this time,” said Wendy Walker, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Comerica, which received $2.25 billion from the government.
Lawmakers say they want to tighten restrictions on the remaining, yet-to-be-released $350 billion block of bailout money before more cash is handed out.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the department is trying to step up its monitoring of bank spending.
Warren, the congressional watchdog, appointed by Democrats, said her oversight panel will try to force the banks to say where they’ve spent the money.
“It would take a lot of nerve not to give answers,” she said.
But Warren said she’s surprised she even has to ask.
“If the appropriate restrictions were put on the money to begin with, if the appropriate transparency was in place, then we wouldn’t be in a position where you’re trying to call every recipient and get the basic information that should already be in public documents,” she said.
——————————————————————————————
Advertisement
