Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: M0NEYMADE who wrote (19067)	4/13/2007 9:29:41 AM
From: lazarre	Respond to of 71588

Besides all PW's bulls$^#$T! regarding his Libyan girlfriend ( besides, what's a nice Jewish Boy dating a woman like that :-)? ). For the first time sine the World Banks' inception, it's been finally doing good works in Africa without the historic catches that further put that continent in feifdomship. Damn the fool. Especially since he was instrumental in initiating these programs that, so soon, are making strides. lazarre

To: M0NEYMADE who wrote (19067)	4/15/2007 2:59:33 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

World Bank Power Play The bureaucracy bites back at Paul Wolfowitz. Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT When Paul Wolfowitz became President of the World Bank in 2005, our private prediction was that it would take about a year before the bureaucratic interests at the bank and in the global "development" industry made a play to oust him. We were off by a few months. The forces of the World Bank status quo are now making their power play, demanding that the bank's board ask him to resign over an ethics flap involving his girlfriend. The dispute is so trivial that it betrays that this fracas has little to do with Mr. Wolfowitz's ethics. The real fight here is over his attempt to make the bank and its borrowers more accountable for results, especially by exposing and punishing corruption. Given his role in the Bush Administration, Mr. Wolfowitz was never going to have an easy time of it at an "international" institution as hide-bound as the World Bank. Its employees make tax-free salaries far larger than most would make at home, or in the private sector. For decades they have been measured not by how much poverty they alleviate, but by how much "lending" they shovel out the door. Mr. Wolfowitz has tried to institute more accountability, especially on corruption. Who could be against fighting corruption? Well, for starters, a global poverty industry that thinks "governance" is a distraction from the only real measure of development, which is how much money "rich" nations choose to redistribute to poor ones. Never mind that many of these countries stay poor year after year precisely because they squander or steal foreign aid. "Governance" ought to be a crucial lending criterion, but in trying to make it so Mr. Wolfowitz is bucking decades of old thinking. His opponents tried to rein in his corruption initiative by demanding a probe of the integrity department that was formed under previous bank President James Wolfensohn. But that effort failed when Mr. Wolfowitz won a fight in the board and put Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Chairman, in charge of the probe. Mr. Volcker is if anything more of an anti-corruption crusader than Mr. Wolfowitz. So now his enemies have turned to "ethics," specifically Mr. Wolfowitz's allegedly improper assistance to his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, who already worked at the bank when he became President. The notion of any "cover-up" here is preposterous since Mr. Wolfowitz disclosed his relationship with Ms. Riza while negotiating his employment contract. He offered to recuse himself from any decision involving her career, and the matter was taken up by a three-person ethics committee of the 24-member bank board. That ethics committee concluded that the relationship constituted a de facto conflict of interest, and so Ms. Riza would have to leave the bank. Keep in mind that Ms. Riza's job at the time was acting manager for external affairs in the Middle East department of the bank. She reported to a deputy vice president, who reported to a vice president, who reported to a managing director, who in turn reported to Mr. Wolfowitz. That's one very long chain of command for a "conflict of interest," especially in the modern workplace where romantic relationships are common. But the ethics committee advised Mr. Wolfowitz that Ms. Riza had to find some other job, and that he had to be the one to see that it got done. The allegation is that Mr. Wolfowitz proceeded to get her a job affiliated with the State Department and pad her pay. But the reality is that the "conflict of interest" judgment by the board effectively ended her World Bank career, and as such she would likely have been entitled to a substantial lump sum payment as a settlement. She might very well have had cause to sue the bank, because the "conflict of interest" was hardly her creation. The raise in pay was intended as an alternative to compensate Ms. Riza for her lost future earnings and prospects at the bank, and to do so without giving her cause for suing the bank for wrongful dismissal. And, by the way, her current job is not some make-work exercise but is a serious project promoting democracy in the Middle East. In retrospect, Mr. Wolfowitz should have insisted to the board that he have nothing to do with any of this. He should have known that his enemies would find some way to use it against him. But the calls that he resign because he can no longer credibly speak out about "governance" are being made by the same people who wink at corruption-as-usual in World Bank lending. Others hoping he'll be forced out include Europeans who'd like nothing better than to finally get one of their own into a post that has traditionally gone to an American. (Europe typically gets the top IMF job.) It's also no accident that all of this leaked to the media shortly before the World Bank-IMF meetings in Washington this weekend. The point is to subject Mr. Wolfowitz and Ms. Riza to a public trial by innuendo. Mr. Wolfowitz issued a statement last week apologizing for his "mistake" in judgment and saying he'll live by any decision by the board. Our view is that if Mr. Wolfowitz is forced to resign, then the entire World Bank board should also resign for its role in this mini-flap--and for letting such ethical minutiae interfere with the serious cause of reducing corruption so the World Bank can do some good for a change opinionjournal.com

To: M0NEYMADE who wrote (19067)	5/7/2007 12:05:58 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

World Bank Rolls Nearly 1,400 employees make more than Condi Rice. Thursday, May 3, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT Renaissance Pope Adrian VI once said of the Roman Curia that its sins "were so widespread that those afflicted by the vice did not even notice the stench anymore." It's a line that could also describe the World Bank staff and its outrage over the "scandalous" raise Paul Wolfowitz awarded his girlfriend Shaha Riza when he became president. If it's transparency over salaries that bank employees want, by all means let's have it. Specifically, let's make public the names, salaries and benefits of every bank employee who makes more than Ms. Riza. American taxpayers supply some 17% of the bank's capital, and a new round of fund raising for the bank's International Development Association is about to commence. If Congress is going to ante up the $7 billion or so the bank is expected to request, the least it can do is insist on more accountability. Keep in mind that Mr. Wolfowitz was directed by the bank's ethics committee to find a new job for Ms. Riza, a longtime bank staffer, when he became president in 2005, despite his requests to be recused from the matter. The committee suggested an "in situ promotion" to the next paygrade or an "ad hoc salary increase" as part of a "settlement of claims." The offer was intended to be generous, given that Ms. Riza--who already had been shortlisted for promotion--was being forced out of the bank, possibly for good, for a conflict she did not create and to a job she had not sought. Ms. Riza was eventually given an external assignment at the State Department with a salary (paid by the bank) of $193,000, up from the $133,000 she had previously made at the bank. To Mr. Wolfowitz's critics, this was improper and excessive, especially given that Condoleezza Rice makes about $10,000 less. But this is highly selective outrage given normal procedure at the bank. Of its roughly 10,000 employees, no fewer than 1,396 have salaries higher than the U.S. Secretary of State; clearly "fighting poverty" does not mean taking a vow of poverty at "multilateral" institutions. At the time of Ms. Riza's departure from the bank, she was a Grade "G" (senior professional) employee; the typical salary in that grade hovers around the $124,000 mark. For the next level, Grade "H"--the level to which Ms. Riza was due to be promoted--salaries average in the $170,000 range, with an upper band of $232,360. No fewer than 17% of bank employees are in this happy bracket. Even sweeter, all of this is tax-free to non-Americans. U.S. employees have to pay U.S. tax but have their income taxes reimbursed by the bank. As with any public bureaucracy, these jobs are also impossible to lose for anything other than gross incompetence or venality. Some of Mr. Wolfowitz's accusers--notably, former general counsel Roberto Danino--are angry precisely because he upset their lifetime sinecure by demanding higher performance. These details are common knowledge within the bank itself, so it's only fair that they be made public to the American taxpayers who finance this comfortable poverty-fighting lifestyle. Alison Cave, the head of the bank staff association leading the campaign against Mr. Wolfowitz, ought to be the first to make her salary and performance reviews public--in the name of restoring the bank's "credibility," to borrow one of her favorite words. And while Congress is at it, let's also disclose the names and details of the 193 bank employees with "potential for supervision" conflicts-of-interest cited by the bank's human-resources department in a 2005 document. When Mr. Wolfowitz became president, Ms. Riza was four levels down in the World Bank hierarchy--a far more distant potential conflict, we suspect, than most of those 193 cases. From the beginning, the attack on Mr. Wolfowitz and Ms. Riza has been a calculated political putsch by Europeans and World Bank staff who fancy themselves immune from any real public scrutiny. If it's a "credible" and transparent bank they want, let's get out the firehose and really go to work. opinionjournal.com