Who railroaded the Amtrak inspector general?
Who railroaded the Amtrak inspector general?
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009
Watchdogs are an endangered species in the Age of Obama. The latest government ombudsman to get the muzzle: Amtrak inspector general Fred Weiderhold. The longtime veteran employee was abruptly “retired” last month –just as the government-subsidized rail service faces mounting complaints about its meddling in financial audits and probes.
Question the timing? Hell, yes.
On June 18, Weiderhold met with Amtrak officials to discuss the results of an independent report by the Washington, D.C. law firm, Willkie, Farr & Gallagher. The 94-page report has been made publicly available through the office of whistleblower advocate Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). It concluded that the “independence and effectiveness” of the Amtrak inspector general’s office “are being substantially impaired” by the agency’s Law Department. Amtrak bosses have effectively gagged their budgetary watchdogs from communicating with Congress without preapproval; required that all Amtrak documents be “pre-screened” (and in some cases redacted) before being turned over to the inspector general’s office; and taken control over the IG’s $5 million portion of federal stimulus dollars.
Moreover, the report revealed, Amtrak regularly retained outside law firms shielded from IG reach. In another case, Amtrak’s Law Department appeared to meddle in an inspector general investigation of an outside financial adviser suspected of inflating fees. The consultant ran to the Law Department when the IG demanded documents; the Law Department repudiated the IG’s instructions on complying with a subpoena.
These interventions (ongoing since 2007) have “systematically violated the letter and spirit of the Inspector General Act,” according to Sen. Grassley. IG staffers now fear retaliation – and with good reason. Their boss, Weiderhold, lost his job on the very day Amtrak received the Willkie, Farr & Gallagher report. It may be hot and humid in the rest of the Beltway, but every inspector general’s office is feeling an Arctic chill.
The transparent sacking comes just as Amtrak is awash in more than $1.3 billion of new federal stimulus funds. It comes on the heels of the unceremonious dismissal of Gerald Walpin, the AmeriCorps inspector general who dared to probe financial shenanigans by Obama cronies. (See “Obama’s AmeriCrooks and cronies scandal,” June 17, 2009.) And it comes on the heels of the stifling of veteran Environmental Protection Agency employee Alan Carlin, the researcher who dared to question the Obama administration’s conventional wisdom on global warming. (See “EPA’s game of global warming hide-and-seek,” June 26, 2009).
Question the timing? You betcha.
So, who is behind the railroading of the Amtrak inspector general? As with the story of the AmeriCorps firing, which has First Lady Michelle Obama’s fingerprints on it, the Amtrak case smells like cronyism. Investigative journalist Robert Stacy McCain, who has watch-dogged the watchdog stories, noted last week that Amtrak’s vice president and general counsel is Eleanor Acheson.
Acheson, an old friend of Hillary Clinton, also has close ties to Vice President Joe “Mr. Amtrak” Biden. She hired Biden’s nominations counsel Jonathan Meyer to serve as her deputy general counsel. The two had also worked together in the Clinton Justice Department. Meyer called his hiring at Amtrak by Acheson a “happy coincidence,” according to Legal Times. (In another “happy coincidence,” Biden’s lobbyist son, Hunter, sits on Amtrak’s board of directors.) Acheson oversees the very Law Department accused of interfering repeatedly with the taxpayer advocates in the inspector general’s office.
Sen. Grassley has requested that Amtrak supply information on Weiderhold’s unexpected retirement, as well as internal and personal materials related to his departure and the report on Amtrak managers’ meddling. On the House side, Reps. Edolphus Towns (D.-N.Y.) and Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.) announced a probe Monday into Amtrak’s actions. They zeroed in on Amtrak’s choice of Lorraine Green to replace “retired” IG Weiderhold. (Click here for their letter to Amtrak Chairman of the Board of Directors Tom Carper.)
Who is Lorraine Green? She’s a former Amtrak human resources executive and faithful Democrat donor with no experience in the inspector general business. Her expertise? Managing “diversity initiatives” for the agency. Watchdog out. Lapdog in.
Can someone open a window? The fetid odor of Hope and Change is really starting to stink up the joint.
***
More:
D.C. Streets Blog – Capitol Hill:
As the oversight committee’s chairman, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), and senior Republican, Rep. Darrell Issa (CA) explained in a letter sent yesterday to Amtrak chairman Thomas Carper:
[T]he legal analysis found that Amtrak management claims that all expenditures of funds designated for the Inspector General must be approved by Amtrak management. In other words, the Inspector General may not use funds provided by Congress to investigate potential waste and fraud in stimulus programs without the consent of the organization being investigated. This is contrary to the clear intent of Congress and is unacceptable.
In a statement released yesterday, Amtrak noted that it had no opportunity to weigh in on the Willkie Farr report and stated that “there was no relationship between the timing of Mr. Weiderhold’s retirement and this report.” Carper added that the rail corporation “would like to maintain an open line of communication and are looking forward to cooperating fully” with the congressional inquiry.
Willkie Farr’s allegations of IG interference at Amtrak ranged beyond the stimulus law. Weiderhold’s office began a review of New York’s Moynihan Station project in March 2008, focusing on the apartment leased by the project manager as well as “the use of lobbying firms and consultants in connection with the project,” the law firm’s report states.
But when one of Weiderhold’s inspectors tried to get a copy the Moynihan project manager’s personnel documents, senior managers would only give him “two board meeting minutes, one which had been redacted,” according to the Willkie Farr report.
The oversight committee has not announced plans for any hearing on the Amtrak issues, but we’ll keep you posted.
Stacy McCain: IG round-up.
Moe Lane: The latest on the latest on the IG situation
***
Contact the House Oversight Committee to support a hearing into the Amtrak railroading.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Congress Living Large On Your Tax Dollars « NEOAVATARA
- Who Let The Dogs Out « Vets On The Watch
- Cap and Trade – Hey, that’s the same as freeing the slaves, right? « Story Balloon
- Another Inspector General Fired. Obama sings – I got you under my thumb. « Story Balloon
- The Obama ‘Evil Eye’ « Jim Blazsik
- Michelle Malkin » Who railroaded the Amtrak inspector general? | Youth Political Blog
- Throw The Inspector From The Train « Around The Sphere
- » Blog Archive » Who railroaded the Amtrak inspector general?
- Obama’s Attack on Inspectors General – Michelle Malkin – Larry Sinclair Ships Out First Book – Dollar Long Term Outlook Bad – Boycot GM & Chrysler « “The BOPAC Report” & Larry Sinclair’s Allega
- The Other McCain: Michelle Malkin Reports on IG-Gate
- The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Malkin on IG-Gate: Does the Endangered Species Act Include Watchdogs?
- Random Thoughts » Who railroaded the Amtrak inspector general?
- In Other News, What’s Happening with the IG Scandal? : The Sundries Shack
- Obama’s continuing war on Inspector Generals : Urbin Report
- The plot thickens « Internet Scofflaw
- About That Transparency… « Obi’s Sister
- The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : IG-Gate: Democratic Staffers 'Useless' in Investigations, Say Republicans
- Rail Security Threatened by Obama Cronyism – Michelle Malkin – ACORN Corruption – Larry Sinclair – Dr. Orly Taitz – Captain Connie Rhodes – Emergency Hearing Granted on September 11th!!! Judge Clay D. Land – Veter
- Michelle Malkin » The jihadi threat to rail security
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama, Corruption, Joe Biden
JustOneMinute
» The Prescient Joe Biden
AmSpecBlog
» A Good Time Not to be a DemocratRiehl World View
» More Climate Change Fraud: Et Tu New Zealand?Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney CaseThe Other McCain
» Alan Colmes, having fun at #1Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas SpecialMudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Right. Only 5.6 of which goes to the FAA. That makes up, what? 40% of the FAA’s total budget. The rest of that trust money goes to other programs related to aviation.
No, its revenues help pay its operating expenses, and NOT its capital expenses. That’s the way accounting works. Revenue minus COGS is profit. Profit, as retained earnings, is used to fund capital expenses, as is other sources of capital, such as borrowing.. Amtrak’s income statemetns clearly show the capital contributions coming from the feds, year after year.
Airlines fund their own capital expenses, mainly in the form of their airplanes and facilities. Airlines have to pay back their creditors; Amtrak doesn’t. Amtrak doesn’t even pay for its trains. Airlines pay income taxes and user fees. Amtrak doesn’t.
Totally off-point, due to your narcissistic attempts to impose YOUR definitions on the world.
Try to follow THIS: an airport is not a thing or “service” that someone can “give” you for free, or to which anyone can impute INCOME. Its “value” cannot be determined by divvying up some number, because some of what it is and does depreciates over time, while other things do not. Some of what it does comes from capital expenses paid for by long-term bonds, IOUs. Other parts don’t directly affect the profitability of the airlines at such as parking and restaurants, which are big moneymakers at all airports.
The task of the airport authority is to recapture its capital costs over time, to repay its debts, and to at least break even.
YOU seem to think airport authorities operate in the red all the time. Evidence for that?
Logan Airport in Boston was in the black for 2006-2008. Kinda explodes yer premise, doesn’t it.
I say again: why do bondholders accept IOUS for airport construction , knowing that airports aren’t paying their share?
You refuse to answer that, which is telling.
And I am the Queen of Sheba.
Bush fired some attorneys for NOT doing their job. Obama fires them FOR doing their job.
Culture of corruption indeed.
Heck, even if some Obama crony did get arrested or indicted, Holder would just let them off anyway, a la the New Black Panther poll thugs and community activists.
Wrong. They fund some of them. The federal government helps out too. If you want to make a silly argument about whether a cost is capital or operating, be my guest. It is difference without distinction in this context.
Did they pay back federal grants? Did they pay for the air traffic control they depend on? Did they pay for the TSA that they depend on? Its easy to make a profit when Uncle Sam is picking up a nice chunck of the tab. Which is also why they are able to pay back all those nice bondholders.
You are being a tool on this. Your definition of subsidize is stupid and narrow.
Enough with you. Go ahead and hate Amtrak all you want, big fella.
Chaps:
You are all over the place here, and it isn’t pretty.
You claimed that the taxes and fees charged by the FAA don’t cover the costs of civilian aviation. The figures prove you wrong.
I have no doubt that the FAA spends more than it takes in from the sources noted, but a lot of what they do has little or nothing with airlines or cargo carriers. I read their happy BS budget.
You claim that fuel taxes don’t cover the cost of highways. I haven’t seen anything to support that.
You claimed that the private passenger carriers “abandoned” their interests. I showed you they were driven out of business by government interference in their market.
Nothing here is getting through, is it?
So, this reduces to a demonstration of your kind of thinking vs. ours.
Citation please. I don’t think you are getting that the FAA does not receive all of the money from those excise taxes. In simplest terms, their budget in 15 billion. They get 5.6 billion from the trust that collects the ticket excise taxes. Please show me where you dispute this. Cite a page number in the report if you can.
Citations, please. What things? Also, what percentage of their budget is comprised of these items that you claim have nothing to do with airlines or cargo carriers.
I think I read that around 1/3 of all highway spending is paid for by gas tax. I am looking for the cite.
I said they wanted out because it was losing money. I was even willing to concede your arguments as to why they were losing money. “Wanted out” b/c they couldn’t make a profit v. “forced out” is stupidly pedantic. If that is the extent of your thinking as opposed to mine, I am glad to be on the other side.
Chap, if a federal grant to expand the services or physical infrastructure of an otherwise profitable public enterprise such as most airports is a “subsidy”, then I STILL am the Queen of Sheba.
Because a science grant to a university has to be “subsidy” too, right?
Of course it does, because (accordin to you)everything the govt spends money on is a “subsidy”, right down to national defense, which is “really” a defense contractor subsidy.
If government spends billions to propr up an otherwise UNprofitable enterprise, wee, that’s just fine with Chap, because it serves a social purpose.
But if profitable enterprises don’t contribute an unquantified “more”, Chap just shoots off his yap claiming (w/o ANY evidence here) that they don’t pay enough.
UNLESS the govt. $$ is spent on are bogus airoprt projects like your HERO Jack Murtha, which I guess is OK with Chap. But major airports MAKE money for their states, and airlines and cargo carriers MAKE money for themselves, as well as enrich their communities. Amtrak makes no money, doesn’t even come close to paying its own way, and can’t compete with airlines, trucks and cars.
Chap, If brains were C4 you wouldn’t have enough to blow yer frackin nose.
You ask for citations but ignore ours.
Again:
Logan Airport in Boston was in the black for 2006-2008. Kinda explodes yer premise, doesn’t it.
google it yourself.
I say again: why do bondholders accept IOUS for airport construction , knowing that airports aren’t paying their share?
Answer that or STFU.
What a frackin moron.
You are lgm with an (alleged) law degree.
Idiot. I never said every government expenditure is a subsidy. And the military is not a private profit making venture. So your analogy is as inane as the rest of your arguments thus far.
Sounds like you might have some issues to discuss with your therapist next session.
Show me that airlines would be profitable if they absorbed all the actual costs inherent in flying.
I have no idea what the hell you are spouting here. Please provide a droolcup to saneperson translaion.
Ours? Huh? Show me one freaking citation you have made. I just checked your posts and you have provided jack. I guess you are just sucking off Rag’s teat when you claim citations, since he can actually make an argument.
Jack Murtha is not my hero and is apparently only slightly more senile and imbecilic than you.
Sure. But do they pay back all the money the government sinks itno them? Answer my question for a change. WOULD AIRLINES BE PROFITABLE IF THEY HAD TO ASSUME ALL, AGAIN ALL, OF THEIR ACTUAL COSTS????
Your stupid argument that “Logan was in the black” (which doesn’t “explode” any “premise” I put forth, fwiw) and that airport authorities have bondholder confidence totally ignores that the airline industry is already starting with a head start in the profit game by virtue of the fact that the US government provides essential services to these entities at below cost. The rest of that is made up from general funds. I have no problem with this. I agree airports do enrich their communities and the US as a whole. I also think rail does as well. That is my point, genius. Again, dollars to donuts, you don’t use rail and thus have an irrational bias against it.
I want to get to the top of the next page.
One more and I get to the top again!
Here’s another puzzler for you, chap:
If I don’t use the Mass Pike at ALL, am I being subsidized?
If I use it only once in a year , am I being subsidized?
Suppose I drive a big semi down the pike every day. I pay tolls, I pay use taxes. Do my extra taxes, as well as my gas tax, help pay for the extra wear my five tons of truck put on the Pike?
Suppose I never have driven on a mid-western interstate. And then I take a cross-country RV trip. Am I being “subsidized”?
Please explain the accounting.
Just who would account for my subsidy?
And how?
Frack you.
If the government cuts me a tax deduction on mortgage interest, am I being “subsidized”, or just being let keep more of my own money?
Double frack you.
Sugar producers GET A CHECK they can cash as their subsidy. Where’s our check?
Sorry no claims that, like the old Prego sauce ad, that it’s “in there” somewhere.
Who does the accounting that lets you make your UNSUPPORTED CLAIM?
OK, I stopped reading here and got busy yesterday. I see lots of people had trouble with my 600 mph train.
The already have trains that go 357.2 mph. (impressive video, that train is haulin!) They have to use specialized rails.
If you have to make specialized rails, you might as well set up a mag-lev type system from scratch. It could be built above current railways so you wouldn’t have crossings for cars or cows. You could even put it in a tube and create somewhat of a vacuum to eliminate drag.
It would have to be a government project. The government pays for every new airport that is built.
If we are going to spend money on something that might actually do something to help, designing the best high speed rail system in the world is something that can last.
If you people only knew the ideas that I have for making life more efficient. it’s all theoretical now because I’m too lazy and poor to work on it, but it’s certainly possible.
One is an electric car (a special way to recharge the battery).
One is a ‘garbage truck’/'tow truck’ in outer space. The technology is available and has been, but they are not focusing the technology in the right direction for this particular invention. It would take me a long time and a long post to explain exactly why that would be important and more efficient for space travel/satellite launches, but I’ll leave it at that.
I have tons of inventions. They scoffed at the Wright brothers too. A 600 mph train wouldn’t be impossible.
You arsehole — your entire argument is premised on the notion that they would not — yet you offer NO evidence to support your case.
You simply assert that which you cannot prove!
Don’t ask us to disprove your unsubstantiated case!
Frack you and good night.
Again: FRACK YOU.
NO IT FRACKIN DOES NOT. Private institutions called bondholders agree to fund big pats of those projects. Government may help, but that’s why chap’s argument is so flaky.
Airports are viable only if the private/public institutions that fund them get their money back, with acceptable interest, over the long term
Jebus, it’s hard arguing with people who have no clue.
HAHAHA! Masters Degree in Aeronautical Sciences from Embry Riddle University here. Daytona Beach, Fl class of 1996.
That’s how I got the ‘no clue’ knowledge of how new airports are funded. The federal government pays for 75% of any new airport, friend. That’s merely a fact.
You are right though, it is hard to argue with people who have no clue. But pointing out facts to back up MY SIDE is pretty easy. This article was written SIX YEARS before the project was completed WAY OVER BUDGET that FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR.
What do I know though.
ThackerAgency said:
Years and Years ago several of us sat down and designed a Monorail System, hubs and smaller rail systems to business centers. It would have used the center of the Major Freeway systems and of course elevated. Hell, we were just some guys that got together and after it was finished we submitted it to the City of LA as well as the State and were basically told to shove off.
fulldroolcup said:
I am just curious, how did the Airport that is Murthas monument to himself get funded?
Chaps held that fliers don’t pay their way…that air passengers are subsidized by taxpayers out of general revenue.
That was shown to be false. Air passengers PAY over $12 billion in taxes, tariffs and fees, which covers the expenses for the activities the FAA performs in civil aviation. Chaps says that the FAA only accounts something over $5 billion out of what we pay. How does that make for a tax-payer subsidy for flyers?
But all this looses track of a basic point he was making. Namely: people who use transport of virtually any kind in the US are being tax-payer subsidized. This is bunk, but let’s say it isn’t.
If that were true, what it says to a conservative is that we need to get government the freak out of transport. What it means is that very INEFFICIENT Federal money is being taken from us…and from the private sector…and squandered on transport spending. That money should be left with us, and we should be paying the efficient actual costs of the transport we use.
A government subsidy is not “free”. It is, in fact, very costly…the least effective way for us to spend a dollar.
There is no excuse for government to subsidize anything. It is a market distortion, by definition.
There is no excuse for a government monopoly, such as Amtrak. It is fascist economics, and it has no place in a free America.
Ayn Rand Warned us in Atlas Shrugged Fiction. But she also wrote Non Fiction.
The New Left The Anti Industrialist. Retitled “The Return of the Primitive” The Anti Industrialist. “IT CAME FROM THE 60S”
My 2 cents:
Chap, I find a lot of your arguments quite telling.
First your general tone about government “subsidies”. You speak of them as if the government itself has money that just appears out of nowhere and they – in their benevolence – bestow it upon the good folks and/or businesses of our country. You know as well as I do that this is far from the truth.
Second, your insistence that there’s no difference between “wanting out” and being “forced out”. I’m not sure why you can’t see the difference. Let’s look at your law practice. There’s a very big difference between a situation where you might be losing clients (with no outside intervention) and deciding to close your doors (or sell your practice to someone else), i.e. “wanting out”, and having a successful and thriving business that starts going in the tank because a government entity begins imposing rules and regulations on you that has an adverse effect on your ability to attract and keep a clientele (being forced out). Surely you aren’t so disingenuous as to continue to insist with a straight face that there’s no difference between being “forced out” and “wanting out”?
Third, airlines would be more than happy to return to the days of providing for their own security. I worked for TSA at the beginning. It was a good operation with good people. Unfortunately, it took only a couple of months for the government to start relaxing their standards as to whom they would employ, the ranks started filling with incompetent political cronies at all levels, and before they could get a good reputation established, it was already ruined. I left because I didn’t want to be associated with something that looked like a low-grade entry on “Ted Mack’s Amateur Hour”. The airlines began begging to be able to go back to hiring and being responsible for their own security, but the Imperial Federal Government has said no to this several times over.
There is nothing that the government can do that private industry can’t do better and more efficiently – with the possible exception of maintaining national defense forces.
Like I said, my 2 cents.