SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305112)4/6/2011 10:47:38 AM
From: tejekRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Wingerism at its finest.....brought to you by Hosni Walker.

No degree, little experience pay off big

April 3, 2011 |

Just in his mid-20s, Brian Deschane has no college degree, very little management experience and two drunken-driving convictions.

Yet he has landed an $81,500-per-year job in Gov. Scott Walker's administration overseeing environmental and regulatory matters and dozens of employees at the Department of Commerce. Even though Walker says the state is broke and public employees are overpaid, Deschane already has earned a promotion and a 26% pay raise in just two months with the state.


How did Deschane score his plum assignment with the Walker team?

It's all in the family.

His father is Jerry Deschane, executive vice president and longtime lobbyist for the Madison-based Wisconsin Builders Association, which bet big on Walker during last year's governor's race.

The group's political action committee gave $29,000 to Walker and his running mate, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, last year, making it one of the top five PAC donors to the governor's successful campaign. Even more impressive, members of the trade group funneled more than $92,000 through its conduit to Walker's campaign over the past two years.

Total donations: $121,652.

That's big-time backing from the homebuilders.

The younger Deschane didn't respond to questions about his job.

But his father said he doesn't think his group's financial support of the first-term Republican helped his son in his job search.

"He got the position himself," said Jerry Deschane, who returned to the trade group in September after a hiatus during which he worked as an independent lobbyist for many groups, including the builders association. "I didn't get it for him."

One Walker critic isn't buying it.

State Rep. Brett Hulsey called Deschane's appointment another case of the new administration using state jobs to repay various industries.

Hulsey said he was unimpressed with the younger Deschane's résumé, including his lack of environmental or management experience.

"It doesn't look like he's ever had a real job," the Madison Democrat said.

Hulsey noted that the recently approved law that made collective bargaining changes converts 37 top agency attorneys, communications officials and legislative liaisons from civil service positions to jobs appointed by the governor.

"This is an example of the quality of candidates you're going to get," said Hulsey, owner of the consulting firm Better Environmental Services.

According to his résumé, Deschane, 27, attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison for two years, worked for two Republican lawmakers - then-Sens. David Zien and Cathy Stepp, now the natural resources secretary - and helped run a legislative and a losing congressional campaign. He held part-time posts with the Wisconsin Builders Association and the Wisconsin Business Council until being named to his first state gig earlier this year.

Deschane's father said that during the gubernatorial contest he might have reminded Keith Gilkes, Walker's campaign manager and now chief of staff, that his son "was out there and available."

"I put in good words for every one of my children in their jobs," said the elder Deschane. "But that would be the extent of it."

David Carlson, spokesman for the Department of Regulation and Licensing, confirmed that Gilkes recommended Deschane for an interview with the agency. Deschane's name does not appear on a list of job applicants with Walker's transition team, but the governor's office confirmed that Gilkes interviewed Deschane for a state job in December.

A month later, Secretary David Ross, a Walker cabinet member, named Deschane the bureau director of board services, a job that paid $64,728 a year.

Not long after, lawmakers approved the governor's plan to convert the Department of Commerce to a public-private hybrid in charge of attracting and retaining businesses, with its regulatory and environmental functions being moved to other agencies.

Commerce Secretary Paul Jadin then appointed Deschane to his new post there to oversee the changes.

"It was felt that he would be helpful in working through the transition issues," said Commerce Department spokesman Tony Hozeny.

The move meant a pay raise of more than $16,500 a year for Deschane, even though he had put in only a couple of months with the state.

Deschane's father said his group doesn't lobby or work with his son's division, which deals primarily with regulating underground storage tanks and petroleum tanks and products. Hozeny said the younger Deschane will be expected to abide by state ethics rules in dealing with family members.

A spokesman for the governor said Walker's team was aware of Deschane's two drunken-driving convictions, the most recent of which occurred in 2008.

"We . . . felt he had changed his habits and that these past incidents would in no way affect his performance at this job," said Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie.

Deschane's father acknowledged that his son had made "foolish" decisions in the past, but he argued that the Walker administration was influenced by the younger Deschane's strong résumé.

"He's a bright young man," the father said.

Michael McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and a regular critic of Walker, said he's not surprised officials claim the builders association's contributions had no impact on the hiring. No politician concedes being influenced by campaign donations, McCabe said.

But he said it's hard to reach any other conclusion in this case.

"It has all the markings of political patronage," McCabe said.

jsonline.com



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305112)4/6/2011 11:53:47 AM
From: joseffyRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Obama’s Justice Department clears itself
.....................................................
By Jennifer Rubin 04/03/2011
washingtonpost.com

Last week intentionally gullible (frightful if they actually buy what they are writing) apologists for the Obama Justice Department proclaimed that the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) scandal was really nothing at all. You see, the Justice Department’s own Office of Personal Responsibility (OPR) had given the department a clean bill of health!

Aside from the obvious hypocrisy — would a Bush self-investigation be given credence by such Obama cheerleaders? — there are multiple grounds for dismissing this as another effort at stonewalling in a scandal that has had many such examples. None of these concern the left (whether those in the left blogosphere or administration defenders such as Commissioner Michael Yaki on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, who oddly was the single commissioner interviewed when the report was released) .

Let’s start with the obvious. OPR is as unprofessional as it is biased. Remember the investigation of lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee? The work was so shoddy the attorney general brought in a career professional to redo it and in fact reject the OPR findings. I contacted one victim of that witch hunt — John Yoo — on Friday. He said of the latest OPR effort: “OPR is showing yet again that it is a biased office, pursuing an ideological agenda, flinging about flawed work product that is unworthy of the Justice Department.”

OPR hasn’t gotten any better since the Yoo-Bybee fiasco. In fact, it has gotten worse, as former Justice Department attorney Hans von Spakovsky pointed out:

Holder was quite open about it. In a contemporaneous interview with the New York Times, he essentially said that Justice had done the right thing on the NBPP case. Given that public comment, it would be surprising if Holder’s recently appointed head of OPR, Robin Ashton, bucked her boss. Last week, she surprised no one, reporting to Congress that there was nothing amiss about the department’s decision to drop a case it had already won.

The only surprise was that Holder seemed to feel he needed to signal OPR on how he wanted it to rule. After all, the office has an unfortunate history of biased and partisan investigations. I predicted this result in January after Holder appointed Ashton, a hyper-liberal lawyer who at one time worked for Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Yeah, when a boss tells his underling and the public there’s no merit to a case, it’s hardly surprising that the subordinate decides, “Gosh, there’s no merit to the case!” We can’t read the report itself, only a cover letter by Ashton, since Justice didn’t release the report. Still you get an inkling of how it was that OPR conducted itself. Von Spakovsky explains:

Thus, there was never much hope that OPR could conduct a competent legal review in the NBPP case. Still, it’s unclear how OPR could determine that no improper influences were at play if it never evaluated what the proper legal decision should have been.

Additionally, it’s clear from the letter that OPR lawyers talked only to Justice Department officials.White House visitors logs released more than a year ago show Justice political appointees known to be involved in the dismissal met with White House counsel during key dates in the NBPP saga.

Yet OPR says it never talked to anyone in the White House who may have been involved in this case.

Ashton fails to mention Justice’s unlawful refusal to provide documents and witnesses subpoenaed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Yet not responding to subpoenas and instructing Justice lawyers to ignore them is per se unprofessional conduct, as explained by Commissioner Todd Gaziano in his concurring statement in the commission’s interim report.

OPR in fact framed the investigation in such a way as to predetermine the outcome: “Ashton’s letter to Congress summarizing OPR’s findings glosses over the crucial flaw in their investigation: OPR ‘did not attempt to evaluate the relative merits of their differing positions.’?” Well then how do we know the decision by Obama appointees was made on the merits? And what about the raft of e-mails between the White House and the voting section at critical decision-making points? Was there no interest in the hours of sworn testimony by the Justice Department trial team head detailing the meddling of career employees and the section’s antagonism toward color-blind enforcement of civil rights laws? It takes quite an effort to turn a blind eye to all that evidence, but OPR was definitely up to that task.

Frankly, in reporting in my pre-Post days and in subsequent reporting by The Post, there is ample evidence that voting section attorneys objected to enforcing civil rights laws against minority defendants (“my people,” as Eric Holder infamously put it). Yet the crack team at OPR apparently didn’t find any evidence of this. (Do they subscribe to The Post?)

No wonder Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) sent a letter on March 30 to the Justice Department demanding answers to his five previous written requests for information. Unless Congress decides to investigate, we’re really never going to get to the bottom of this. Oh well, there is the next Republican administration, which, when it comes in, can ferret out the incriminating information from Justice’s files. You wonder how career Justice Department employees think they’re going to escape scrutiny then?



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (305112)4/6/2011 2:27:00 PM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
House Dem: Climate change bigger health threat than AIDS, malaria

The Hill By Andrew Restuccia - 04/06/11
thehill.com

Just hours before a vote Wednesday on a GOP plan to block Environmental Protection Agency climate regulations, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) called climate change a bigger public health threat than AIDS, malaria and pandemic flu.
Capps and several other liberal Democrats spoke out Wednesday morning in opposition to the legislation, authored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
The lawmakers, who were joined by officials from the American Lung Association and the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the Upton bill would harm public health.
Capps pointed to a 2009 article in The Lancet, a medical journal, that said climate change could be the “biggest global health threat of the 21st century."
“That makes climate change a bigger public health problem than AIDS, than malaria, than pandemic flu,” Capps said. “That’s why we need to take steps to address this cause behind this growing public health problem.”

Later, Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) blasted the Upton bill as a “move by Republicans to reject science.”
Democrats intend to force a vote on an amendment calling on the House to accept a scientific finding by the EPA that climate change affects public health. Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee offered a similar amendment during the panel’s consideration of the bill.
The last-minute push to oppose the bill is part of a broader effort by some Democrats and environmental and public health groups to cast Republicans as opponents of public health protections and cohorts of industry.
But Republicans argue that EPA climate regulations will burden the economy and many in the GOP take issue with the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and it is caused in large part by human activity.
Despite the Democrats’ opposition, the Upton legislation is expected to easily pass the House later Wednesday. But the bill faces major hurdles in the Senate.
Companion legislation has been offered as an amendment to Senate small business legislation by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The Senate is expected to take up the amendment and three alternative amendments offered by Democrats that would limit rather than eliminate EPA’s climate authority later Wednesday
The Upton bill has some support from Democrats. Reps. Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Collin Peterson (Minn.) and Dan Boren (Okla.) are all co-sponsors of the bill. More Democrats are expected to vote in favor of the legislation, but just how many is unclear.