I have a better idea. Grassley and his fellow Republicans in Congress commit mass hari-kari, or if they prefer, hara-kiri.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1237316791
New Developments III
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8006
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
How's this for a solution, Greg?
Senetor Grassley suggests AIG executives commit suicide
Senetor Grassley suggests AIG executives commit suicide
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Conservative talk-show host and former Republican Florida U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough has called for nationalizing AIG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_qvwIBjnBo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_qvwIBjnBo
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6390
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
I'm not sure what this fuss about bank nationalization is about; it looks a lot like the Democratic party is just trying to pass the buck to the banks. The blunt fact is that those banks like Citigroup which would be bankrupt without goverment money, are de facto under govermental control, regardless of whether they are formally nationalized or not.Greg wrote:A.F.L.-C.I.O. to Support Nationalizing Banks
So far the only definite policy that the Democratic party have given the banks is TARP (see Magilla's post), which speaks volumes of the shallowness of their economic policy. Democrats are pretty good at throwing money around, but beyond that there isn't much content in their policy (And by saying that, I am not implying that the Republican party's policy is any better, on the contrary, Republicans are even worse). It is true that the banks have been passive in restructuring, but the reason to that is that their de facto owner, the goverment of the United States, has not given them the leadership which they have been expecting; just look at the (very disappointed) market reaction when the Geithner Plan was announced. A lot of money, not much content.
It would be short-sighted of the Democratic party to formally nationalize the banks. The situation with the banks is not going to get any better any time soon, and the Democratic party does not have the means to change that. It is therefore not wise to take full political responsibility for the banks; it is better to have the private bank managers around to take the blame when the economic situation does not suddenly improve. Furthermore, if the Democrats feel that they need the short-term popularity boost that they would get from formally nationalizing the banks, it's better to save that until election year.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19350
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
John Stewart bitch slaps so-called financial expert Jim Cramer on his show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/videos.jhtml
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/videos.jhtml
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8006
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
It's not so cut-and-dried. When the Federal government gives money to fund unemployment insurance, that money is expected to be paid back. It's a loan. Once the state accepts it, it's expected to pay the federal government back in full, and with interest. And unlike the federal government, state governments are expected to balance their yearly budgets. Theoretically, a state can be in such dire economic straits that accepting the money for unemployment could financially hurt a state over the long run. I assume Perry would be against this so-called "redefining unemployment" issue anyway. It's an issue that empowers unions, and I'm sure he wouldn't want that. But if this recession goes on much longer, don't be suprised to find some Democratic governors rejecting bailout money to extend unemployment benefits.OscarGuy wrote:Here's hoping this backfires on them. I think they should have put requirements on all of the funds that it's "all or nothing". If you don't want to help the unemployed, you don't get more jobs to give them. I know it's a bit mean-spirited, but I don't think states should be allowed to reject any of the funds they are given.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Here's hoping this backfires on them. I think they should have put requirements on all of the funds that it's "all or nothing". If you don't want to help the unemployed, you don't get more jobs to give them. I know it's a bit mean-spirited, but I don't think states should be allowed to reject any of the funds they are given.
Texas gov. rejects stimulus money for unemployment
By MONICA RHOR, Associated Press Writer Monica Rhor, Associated Press Writer – 52 mins ago
HOUSTON – Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday rejected $555 million in federal stimulus money that would expand state unemployment benefits, saying the money would have required the state to keep funding the expanded benefits after the stimulus money ran out.
Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill, did accept most of the roughly $17 billion slated for Texas in the plan.
But he said the requirements attached to the federal stimulus money would require a change in the state's definition of unemployment, expanding coverage to more people and placing more of the state's tax burden on employers.
"During these tough times, Texas employers are working harder than ever to move products to market, make payroll and create jobs," Perry said at a news conference. "The last thing they need is government burdening them with higher taxes and expanded obligations."
Perry said such an expansion would counteract the package's objective of job creation by leading companies to limit hiring and raise prices.
To receive the full amount of stimulus money available, lawmakers would need to adjust the time period used to determine whether people are eligible for benefits.
Texas also is being asked to expand eligibility to include thousands of low-wage workers. Lawmakers have said the change would help part-time employees like single mothers, college students and senior citizens.
Perry's decision comes despite warnings from Texas Workforce Commission Chairman Tom Pauken that the state's unemployment compensation trust fund could be operating at a deficit by October. Pauken told lawmakers recently that insolvency might not be not far behind.
Texas gov. rejects stimulus money for unemployment
By MONICA RHOR, Associated Press Writer Monica Rhor, Associated Press Writer – 52 mins ago
HOUSTON – Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday rejected $555 million in federal stimulus money that would expand state unemployment benefits, saying the money would have required the state to keep funding the expanded benefits after the stimulus money ran out.
Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill, did accept most of the roughly $17 billion slated for Texas in the plan.
But he said the requirements attached to the federal stimulus money would require a change in the state's definition of unemployment, expanding coverage to more people and placing more of the state's tax burden on employers.
"During these tough times, Texas employers are working harder than ever to move products to market, make payroll and create jobs," Perry said at a news conference. "The last thing they need is government burdening them with higher taxes and expanded obligations."
Perry said such an expansion would counteract the package's objective of job creation by leading companies to limit hiring and raise prices.
To receive the full amount of stimulus money available, lawmakers would need to adjust the time period used to determine whether people are eligible for benefits.
Texas also is being asked to expand eligibility to include thousands of low-wage workers. Lawmakers have said the change would help part-time employees like single mothers, college students and senior citizens.
Perry's decision comes despite warnings from Texas Workforce Commission Chairman Tom Pauken that the state's unemployment compensation trust fund could be operating at a deficit by October. Pauken told lawmakers recently that insolvency might not be not far behind.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19350
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
From Page 6:
D.C. Party Pooper
NEW York's party planners aren't dancing over legislation Sen. John Kerry is trying to push through Congress.
Last week, the Massachusetts lawmaker introduced the TARP Taxpayer Protection & Corporate Responsibility Act, which would prevent all 421 institutions that received federal bailout money from "hosting, sponsoring, or paying for conferences, holiday parties and entertainment events."
Kerry introduced the bill after learning the Northern Trust Corp. of Chicago, a profitable bank that received $1.6 billion in government cash, had sponsored a golf tournament in Los Angeles with special outings for clients featuring performances by Earth, Wind and Fire and Sheryl Crow.
But small business owners who help produce such events say Kerry's rules could have an unintended deadly impact. Noah Tepperberg, owner of Manhattan nightclub Marquee, told Page Six's Neel Shah, "Conferences, holiday parties and entertainment events are often business drivers and can be important factors in helping drive bottom-line profits. I think it's absurd that the government stereotypes all such activities."
Matt Levine, owner of The Eldridge on the Lower East Side, agrees. "Just because John Kerry didn't get into the White House, and probably wouldn't get into The Eldridge either, he should really be focusing on creating more jobs, not taking them away."
"At the end of the day, we are an industry of valets, caterers, florists, groomers and the like," said Shawn Sedlacek, whose VOX Group handled technical and marketing aspects of the Northern Trust event. "For every $100,000 that's spent on an event, $90,000 of that goes to human power. This backlash of 'don't do events' is going to hurt a lot of working-class people."
A rep for the National Business Travel Association said, "In this economy, businesses wouldn't be throwing money around if they didn't expect a return. This bill could really hurt a lot of the people the government is trying to help."
D.C. Party Pooper
NEW York's party planners aren't dancing over legislation Sen. John Kerry is trying to push through Congress.
Last week, the Massachusetts lawmaker introduced the TARP Taxpayer Protection & Corporate Responsibility Act, which would prevent all 421 institutions that received federal bailout money from "hosting, sponsoring, or paying for conferences, holiday parties and entertainment events."
Kerry introduced the bill after learning the Northern Trust Corp. of Chicago, a profitable bank that received $1.6 billion in government cash, had sponsored a golf tournament in Los Angeles with special outings for clients featuring performances by Earth, Wind and Fire and Sheryl Crow.
But small business owners who help produce such events say Kerry's rules could have an unintended deadly impact. Noah Tepperberg, owner of Manhattan nightclub Marquee, told Page Six's Neel Shah, "Conferences, holiday parties and entertainment events are often business drivers and can be important factors in helping drive bottom-line profits. I think it's absurd that the government stereotypes all such activities."
Matt Levine, owner of The Eldridge on the Lower East Side, agrees. "Just because John Kerry didn't get into the White House, and probably wouldn't get into The Eldridge either, he should really be focusing on creating more jobs, not taking them away."
"At the end of the day, we are an industry of valets, caterers, florists, groomers and the like," said Shawn Sedlacek, whose VOX Group handled technical and marketing aspects of the Northern Trust event. "For every $100,000 that's spent on an event, $90,000 of that goes to human power. This backlash of 'don't do events' is going to hurt a lot of working-class people."
A rep for the National Business Travel Association said, "In this economy, businesses wouldn't be throwing money around if they didn't expect a return. This bill could really hurt a lot of the people the government is trying to help."
A.F.L.-C.I.O. to Support Nationalizing Banks
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: March 3, 2009
MIAMI BEACH — The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s executive council will call on the Obama administration on Wednesday to speed the nationalization of problem banks to stimulate lending and lift the sagging economy.
The labor federation, a lobbying powerhouse that represents 10 million workers, will thus become one of the first groups — and certainly the most powerful — to call for moving more aggressively on nationalization, both to counter Republican and business cries against it and to press the Obama administration not to vacillate over such a move.
A.F.L.-C.I.O. officials asserted that the administration’s practice of giving billions of dollars in dribs and drabs to distressed banks had failed to restore their solvency, leaving them as zombie banks that largely refrain from lending, thereby contributing to the economy’s decline.
The executive council is scheduled to approve a statement that criticizes the Obama administration for indulging shareholders of distressed banks by not nationalizing the banks to speed the cleanup of their balance sheets.
“We believe the debate over nationalization is delaying the inevitable bank restructuring, which is something our economy cannot afford,” a draft of the council’s statement said.
The labor leaders also asserted that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, had failed to obtain fair value for the tens of billions it had invested in distressed banks.
“By feeding the banks public money in fits and starts, and asking little or nothing in the way of sacrifice, we are going down the path Japan took in the 1990s — a path that leads to ‘zombie banks’ and long-term economic stagnation,” the draft statement said.
The statement makes clear that the group wants to add its political and lobbying muscle to calls by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini and other economists in favor of nationalization.
Labor leaders said the administration appeared to be vacillating on nationalization partly out of fear of Republican attacks that it was adopting socialist policies.
Banking executives have spoken out against nationalization, saying it would hurt shareholders and insisting they can nurse their banks back to health.
Some Obama officials voice fears that it will be hard to manage nationalized banks and that nationalization could drive down the shares of other financial institutions by generating fears that additional banks will be taken over.
A.F.L.-C.I.O. leaders said they did not favor long-term nationalization of banks, but rather temporary trusteeships in which the government would take a controlling stake in a bank, clean up its balance sheet, then spin it off.
“The result should be banks that can either be turned over to bondholders in exchange for bondholder concessions or sold back into the public markets,” the executive council’s draft said.
James A. Baker, the Treasury secretary under President Ronald Reagan, wrote in The Financial Times on Tuesday that temporary nationalization might be necessary to inject public funds into problem banks.
“I abhor the idea of government ownership — either partial or full — even if only temporary,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, we may have no choice. But we must be very careful. The government should hold equity no longer than necessary to restructure the banks, resume normal lending and recoup at least a portion of taxpayer investment.”
The labor leaders said that 43 percent of the nation’s bank assets were held by four institutions — Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase. One A.F.L.-C.I.O. financial expert said Citigroup and Bank of America were insolvent and candidates for quick nationalization.
“When these institutions are paralyzed, our whole economy suffers,” the labor statement said, adding, “However, government interventions must be structured to protect the public interest, and not merely rescue executives or wealthy investors.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/business/04private.html
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: March 3, 2009
MIAMI BEACH — The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s executive council will call on the Obama administration on Wednesday to speed the nationalization of problem banks to stimulate lending and lift the sagging economy.
The labor federation, a lobbying powerhouse that represents 10 million workers, will thus become one of the first groups — and certainly the most powerful — to call for moving more aggressively on nationalization, both to counter Republican and business cries against it and to press the Obama administration not to vacillate over such a move.
A.F.L.-C.I.O. officials asserted that the administration’s practice of giving billions of dollars in dribs and drabs to distressed banks had failed to restore their solvency, leaving them as zombie banks that largely refrain from lending, thereby contributing to the economy’s decline.
The executive council is scheduled to approve a statement that criticizes the Obama administration for indulging shareholders of distressed banks by not nationalizing the banks to speed the cleanup of their balance sheets.
“We believe the debate over nationalization is delaying the inevitable bank restructuring, which is something our economy cannot afford,” a draft of the council’s statement said.
The labor leaders also asserted that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, had failed to obtain fair value for the tens of billions it had invested in distressed banks.
“By feeding the banks public money in fits and starts, and asking little or nothing in the way of sacrifice, we are going down the path Japan took in the 1990s — a path that leads to ‘zombie banks’ and long-term economic stagnation,” the draft statement said.
The statement makes clear that the group wants to add its political and lobbying muscle to calls by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini and other economists in favor of nationalization.
Labor leaders said the administration appeared to be vacillating on nationalization partly out of fear of Republican attacks that it was adopting socialist policies.
Banking executives have spoken out against nationalization, saying it would hurt shareholders and insisting they can nurse their banks back to health.
Some Obama officials voice fears that it will be hard to manage nationalized banks and that nationalization could drive down the shares of other financial institutions by generating fears that additional banks will be taken over.
A.F.L.-C.I.O. leaders said they did not favor long-term nationalization of banks, but rather temporary trusteeships in which the government would take a controlling stake in a bank, clean up its balance sheet, then spin it off.
“The result should be banks that can either be turned over to bondholders in exchange for bondholder concessions or sold back into the public markets,” the executive council’s draft said.
James A. Baker, the Treasury secretary under President Ronald Reagan, wrote in The Financial Times on Tuesday that temporary nationalization might be necessary to inject public funds into problem banks.
“I abhor the idea of government ownership — either partial or full — even if only temporary,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, we may have no choice. But we must be very careful. The government should hold equity no longer than necessary to restructure the banks, resume normal lending and recoup at least a portion of taxpayer investment.”
The labor leaders said that 43 percent of the nation’s bank assets were held by four institutions — Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase. One A.F.L.-C.I.O. financial expert said Citigroup and Bank of America were insolvent and candidates for quick nationalization.
“When these institutions are paralyzed, our whole economy suffers,” the labor statement said, adding, “However, government interventions must be structured to protect the public interest, and not merely rescue executives or wealthy investors.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/business/04private.html
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8006
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
George W. Bush Joins Facebook: Day One
George is now friends with Condi Rice, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, Antonin Scalia and Tom DeLay
George W. Bush is sayin' howdy! My first post---wOOt! What's up?
3:08pm February 23
Scooter Libby at 3:09pm February 23
Why didn't you pardon me, you prick?
Sarah Palin at 3:09pm February 23
Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather pal around with terrorists.
Mitch McConnell at 3:10pm February 23
Now I can say it---you really sucked.
Tom DeLay invited you to join the Bitter Aging Texans Group
George is now friends with Dana Perino, Tony Blair and King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud
Grover Norquist at 3:11pm February 23
I told you to reduce the size of the government so you could drown it in the bathtub. You grew the size of the government, toweled it off, then blew up the bathtub. Your dad's right--you got hit with a special kind of dumbstick.
Scooter Libby, Sarah Palin and Mitch McConnell like this comment
Condi Rice at 3:12pm February 23
Friends 4evuh!!! {{{Mr. President}}}
Dick Cheney at 3:13pm February 23
Why didn’t you pardon Scooter you prick???
Scooter Libby likes this comment
General Colin Powell (Ret.) sent you a bucket of virtual maggots.
Elizabeth Dole at 3:14pm February 23
Here---have a hot cuppa STFU
Bob Dole likes this comment
Michael Steele at 3:15pm February 23
Facebook is the only party in town, baby. Mainly because you KILLED OURS!!!
John McCain wants to send you a virtual can of coal slag and a bag of rusty nails
Norm Coleman just threw a shoe at you.
King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud at 3:35pm February 23
Where is the Scrabble page? I wish to play Scrabble now.
Scooter Libby likes this comment
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Boy. I can see this backfiring on the governors...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090222/pl_bloomberg/abmo6z0aloxk
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090222/pl_bloomberg/abmo6z0aloxk
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
From The Independent:
***********************
A 'fraud' bigger than Madoff
Senior US soldiers investigated over missing Iraq reconstruction billions
By Patrick Cockburn in Sulaimaniyah, Northern Iraq
Monday, 16 February 2009
In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US -directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme.
"I believe the real looting of Iraq after the invasion was by US officials and contractors, and not by people from the slums of Baghdad," said one US businessman active in Iraq since 2003.
In one case, auditors working for SIGIR discovered that $57.8m was sent in "pallet upon pallet of hundred-dollar bills" to the US comptroller for south-central Iraq, Robert J Stein Jr, who had himself photographed standing with the mound of money. He is among the few US officials who were in Iraq to be convicted of fraud and money-laundering.
Despite the vast sums expended on rebuilding by the US since 2003, there have been no cranes visible on the Baghdad skyline except those at work building a new US embassy and others rusting beside a half-built giant mosque that Saddam was constructing when he was overthrown. One of the few visible signs of government work on Baghdad's infrastructure is a tireless attention to planting palm trees and flowers in the centre strip between main roads. Those are then dug up and replanted a few months later.
Iraqi leaders are convinced that the theft or waste of huge sums of US and Iraqi government money could have happened only if senior US officials were themselves involved in the corruption. In 2004-05, the entire Iraq military procurement budget of $1.3bn was siphoned off from the Iraqi Defence Ministry in return for 28-year-old Soviet helicopters too obsolete to fly and armoured cars easily penetrated by rifle bullets. Iraqi officials were blamed for the theft, but US military officials were largely in control of the Defence Ministry at the time and must have been either highly negligent or participants in the fraud.
American federal investigators are now starting an inquiry into the actions of senior US officers involved in the programme to rebuild Iraq, according to The New York Times, which cites interviews with senior government officials and court documents. Court records reveal that, in January, investigators subpoenaed the bank records of Colonel Anthony B Bell, now retired from the US Army, but who was previously responsible for contracting for the reconstruction effort in 2003 and 2004. Two federal officials are cited by the paper as saying that investigators are also looking at the activities of Lieutenant-Colonel Ronald W Hirtle of the US Air Force, who was senior contracting officer in Baghdad in 2004. It is not clear what specific evidence exists against the two men, who have both said they have nothing to hide.
The end of the Bush administration which launched the war may give fresh impetus to investigations into frauds in which tens of billions of dollars were spent on reconstruction with little being built that could be used. In the early days of the occupation, well-connected Republicans were awarded jobs in Iraq, regardless of experience. A 24-year-old from a Republican family was put in charge of the Baghdad stock exchange which had to close down because he allegedly forgot to renew the lease on its building.
In the expanded inquiry by federal agencies, the evidence of a small-time US businessman called Dale C Stoffel who was murdered after leaving the US base at Taiji north of Baghdad in 2004 is being re-examined. Before he was killed, Mr Stoffel, an arms dealer and contractor, was granted limited immunity from prosecution after he had provided information that a network of bribery – linking companies and US officials awarding contracts – existed within the US-run Green Zone in Baghdad. He said bribes of tens of thousands of dollars were regularly delivered in pizza boxes sent to US contracting officers.
So far, US officers who have been successfully prosecuted or unmasked have mostly been involved in small-scale corruption. Often sums paid out in cash were never recorded. In one case, an American soldier put in charge of reviving Iraqi boxing gambled away all the money but he could not be prosecuted because, although the money was certainly gone, nobody had recorded if it was $20,000 or $60,000.
Iraqi ministers admit the wholesale corruption of their government. Ali Allawi, the former finance minister, said Iraq was "becoming like Nigeria in the past when all the oil revenues were stolen". But there has also been a strong suspicion among senior Iraqis that US officials must have been complicit or using Iraqi appointees as front-men in corrupt deals. Several Iraqi officials given important jobs at the urging of the US administration in Baghdad were inexperienced. For instance, the arms procurement chief at the centre of the Defence Ministry scandal, was a Polish-Iraqi, 27 years out of Iraq, who had run a pizza restaurant on the outskirts of Bonn in the 1990s.
In many cases, contractors never started or finished facilities they were supposedly building. As security deteriorated in Iraq from the summer of 2003 it was difficult to check if a contract had been completed. But the failure to provide electricity, water and sewage disposal during the US occupation was crucial in alienating Iraqis from the post-Saddam regime.
***********************
A 'fraud' bigger than Madoff
Senior US soldiers investigated over missing Iraq reconstruction billions
By Patrick Cockburn in Sulaimaniyah, Northern Iraq
Monday, 16 February 2009
In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US -directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme.
"I believe the real looting of Iraq after the invasion was by US officials and contractors, and not by people from the slums of Baghdad," said one US businessman active in Iraq since 2003.
In one case, auditors working for SIGIR discovered that $57.8m was sent in "pallet upon pallet of hundred-dollar bills" to the US comptroller for south-central Iraq, Robert J Stein Jr, who had himself photographed standing with the mound of money. He is among the few US officials who were in Iraq to be convicted of fraud and money-laundering.
Despite the vast sums expended on rebuilding by the US since 2003, there have been no cranes visible on the Baghdad skyline except those at work building a new US embassy and others rusting beside a half-built giant mosque that Saddam was constructing when he was overthrown. One of the few visible signs of government work on Baghdad's infrastructure is a tireless attention to planting palm trees and flowers in the centre strip between main roads. Those are then dug up and replanted a few months later.
Iraqi leaders are convinced that the theft or waste of huge sums of US and Iraqi government money could have happened only if senior US officials were themselves involved in the corruption. In 2004-05, the entire Iraq military procurement budget of $1.3bn was siphoned off from the Iraqi Defence Ministry in return for 28-year-old Soviet helicopters too obsolete to fly and armoured cars easily penetrated by rifle bullets. Iraqi officials were blamed for the theft, but US military officials were largely in control of the Defence Ministry at the time and must have been either highly negligent or participants in the fraud.
American federal investigators are now starting an inquiry into the actions of senior US officers involved in the programme to rebuild Iraq, according to The New York Times, which cites interviews with senior government officials and court documents. Court records reveal that, in January, investigators subpoenaed the bank records of Colonel Anthony B Bell, now retired from the US Army, but who was previously responsible for contracting for the reconstruction effort in 2003 and 2004. Two federal officials are cited by the paper as saying that investigators are also looking at the activities of Lieutenant-Colonel Ronald W Hirtle of the US Air Force, who was senior contracting officer in Baghdad in 2004. It is not clear what specific evidence exists against the two men, who have both said they have nothing to hide.
The end of the Bush administration which launched the war may give fresh impetus to investigations into frauds in which tens of billions of dollars were spent on reconstruction with little being built that could be used. In the early days of the occupation, well-connected Republicans were awarded jobs in Iraq, regardless of experience. A 24-year-old from a Republican family was put in charge of the Baghdad stock exchange which had to close down because he allegedly forgot to renew the lease on its building.
In the expanded inquiry by federal agencies, the evidence of a small-time US businessman called Dale C Stoffel who was murdered after leaving the US base at Taiji north of Baghdad in 2004 is being re-examined. Before he was killed, Mr Stoffel, an arms dealer and contractor, was granted limited immunity from prosecution after he had provided information that a network of bribery – linking companies and US officials awarding contracts – existed within the US-run Green Zone in Baghdad. He said bribes of tens of thousands of dollars were regularly delivered in pizza boxes sent to US contracting officers.
So far, US officers who have been successfully prosecuted or unmasked have mostly been involved in small-scale corruption. Often sums paid out in cash were never recorded. In one case, an American soldier put in charge of reviving Iraqi boxing gambled away all the money but he could not be prosecuted because, although the money was certainly gone, nobody had recorded if it was $20,000 or $60,000.
Iraqi ministers admit the wholesale corruption of their government. Ali Allawi, the former finance minister, said Iraq was "becoming like Nigeria in the past when all the oil revenues were stolen". But there has also been a strong suspicion among senior Iraqis that US officials must have been complicit or using Iraqi appointees as front-men in corrupt deals. Several Iraqi officials given important jobs at the urging of the US administration in Baghdad were inexperienced. For instance, the arms procurement chief at the centre of the Defence Ministry scandal, was a Polish-Iraqi, 27 years out of Iraq, who had run a pizza restaurant on the outskirts of Bonn in the 1990s.
In many cases, contractors never started or finished facilities they were supposedly building. As security deteriorated in Iraq from the summer of 2003 it was difficult to check if a contract had been completed. But the failure to provide electricity, water and sewage disposal during the US occupation was crucial in alienating Iraqis from the post-Saddam regime.