Strange Co-Signers

I was traveling and did not notice last week that FireDog Lake's Jane Hamsher and the Americans for Tax Reform's Grover Norquist have co-signed a letter calling for an investigation of President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Jane Hamsher has been one of the most thorough and tenacious progressive bloggers out there, for a long time, a true lefty. I admit that when I saw her on Rachel Maddow's show a couple of months ago I developed a bit of a crush on her, she turns out to be beautiful and articulate and funny in person, too. Grover Norquist, on the other hand, is a key conservative strategist, he's the guy who said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." She represents the "left of the left" -- the term used by a "senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity" talking to the Washington Post a while back -- and Norquist represents the right of the right. The fact that they went in together on this is remarkable, to say the least.

Here's their letter:

December 23, 2009

Attorney General of the United States of America
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

We write to demand an immediate investigation into the activities of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. We believe there is an abundant public record which establishes that the actions of the White House have blocked any investigation into his activities while on the board of Freddie Mac from 2000-2001, and facilitated the cover up of potential malfeasance until the 10-year statute of limitations has run out.

The purpose of this letter is to connect the dots to establish both the conduct of Mr. Emanuel and those working with him to thwart inquiry, and to support your acting speedily so that the statute of limitations does not run out before the Justice Department is able to empanel a grand jury.

The New York Times reports that the administration is negotiating to double the commitments to Fannie and Freddie for a total of $800 billion by December 31, in order to avoid the congressional approval that would be needed after that date. But there currently is no Inspector General exercising independent oversight of these entities. Acting Inspector General Ed Kelly was stripped of his authority earlier this year by the Justice Department, relying on a loophole in a bill Mr. Emanuel cosponsored and pushed through Congress shortly before he left for the White House. This effectively ended Mr. Kelly’s investigation into what happened at Fannie and Freddie.

Since that time, despite multiple warnings by Congress that having no independent Inspector General for a federal agency that oversees $6 trillion in mortgages is a serious oversight, the White House has not appointed one.

We recognize that these are extremely serious accusations, but the stonewalling by Mr. Emanuel and the White House has left us with no other redress. A 2003 report by Freddie Mac’s regulator indicated that Freddie Mac executives had informed the board of their intention to misstate the earnings to insure their own bonuses during the time Mr. Emanuel was a director. But the White House refused to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request from the Chicago Tribune for those board minutes on the grounds that Freddie Mac was a “commercial” entity, even though it was wholly owned by the government at the time the request was made.

If the Treasury approves the $800 billion commitment to Fannie and Freddie by the end of the year, it will mean that under the influence of Rahm Emanuel, the White House is moving a trillion-dollar slush fund into corruption-riddled companies with no oversight in place. This will allow Fannie and Freddie to continue to purchase more toxic assets from banks, acting as a back-door increase of the TARP without congressional approval.

Before the White House commits any more money to Fannie and Freddie, we call on the Public Integrity Section in the Justice Department to begin an investigation into the cause of Fannie and Freddie’s conservatorship, into Rahm Emanuel’s activities on the board of Freddie Mac (including any violations of his fiduciary duties to shareholders), into the decision-making behind the continued vacancy of Fannie and Freddie’s Inspector General post, and into potential public corruption by Rahm Emanuel in connection with his time in Congress, in the White House, and on the board of Freddie Mac.

We also call for the immediate appointment of an Inspector General with a complete remit to go after this information.

We both come from differing political ideologies. One of us is the conservative head of a transparency foundation, and the other is the publisher of a liberal political blog. But we make common cause today out of grave concern for the future of our country in the wake of corruption-riddled bailouts. These bailouts continue to rob Main Street to benefit Wall Street, and, because of that, we together demand the resignation of Mr. Emanuel, a man who has steadfastly worked to obstruct both oversight and inquiry into the matter. Rahm Emanuel’s conflicts of interest render him far too compromised to serve as gatekeeper to the President of the United States.

We will lay out the details further below, and are available at your earliest convenience to meet with you directly.

Sincerely,
Jane Hamsher
Firedoglake.com

Grover Norquist
Americans for Tax Reform

Jane Hamsher, Grover Norquist Call for Rahm Emanuel’s Resignation

It is hard to imagine an alliance forming between progressives who want to see a powerful government that protects its citizens from corporate greed and works toward world peace and conservatives who want to bolster the interests of big business and shrink government. But both sides have expressed intense disappointment at the action of the current administration so far.

The best analysis I've seen of this particular alliance between left and right appeared on Ellen's Illinois Tenth Congressional District Blog. I recommend reading the whole thing. One point that jumped out at me:

Progressive populists argue that you have to fight the large corporate interests to achieve reform. Conservative populists argue that you have to fight big government to keep taxes down.

She describes how these messages have been appropriated by powerful groups, delegitimizing them as populist positions, though they are opinions held by a great number of Americans. The problem is that the only force that can control corporate greed is government regulation, and to reduce government you have to move responsibility to the private sector, e.g., corporations that are motivated by profits. So while the vast majority of ordinary citizens would like to see minimal government interference with their personal liberties, lower taxes, and a competitive marketplace that drives prices down and quality up, there are two polarized viewpoints about how to get to that point. And these days the messages for those viewpoints are controlled by government and corporate propagandists, so the populist plea is effectively drowned out.

The conservative teabaggers might carry signs demanding their country back, but progressives also feel that the vision of the Founding Fathers is being undermined as the Obama administration measures its decisions against a centrist position that is held only by voters who aren't paying attention. It is possible to look at a piece of legislation or a new policy with the question in mind, will it affect me? And if it doesn't, it is possible to shrug your shoulders and accept whatever Washington does as some kind of inevitable background noise. I am not affected if gay government employees don't get benefits for their partners, it doesn't affect me if we bomb innocent Pakistani villagers with drones, I won't really feel it personally if corporations getting gigantic bailout donations from taxpayers give their undeserving CEOs ridiculous bonuses. That is the position that Obama seems to weigh his positions against, the position held by the majority of Americans who are too busy living their lives to pay close attention to Washington politics. Meanwhile, those who are honestly interested in the integrity of government feel they are being undermined, left and right. The press can call them extremists, but they are the people who are paying attention, and the administration has alienated progressives and conservatives alike.

I am not in a position to judge whether Rahm Emanuel is the guy to go after here to get things back on track, but it is significant to see these two individuals, representing opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, co-signing a letter demanding accountability from the White House.