Chicago on the Potomac

Politics is about coalitions. Put together enough warlords, priests, ward healers and/or visionary activists, with enough men and horses, or crowds with pitchforks, or union muscle, or money walking around in sandals, or all of the above and you get to sit in the big chair and wear the big hat. Of course, the thread with which you knit together your tapestry can be woven out of a lot of different types of fabric. Sometimes it's common opinions; other times, common animosities. But the oldest and maybe the most durable fabric is the simple buddy bond. From the big man on down to the local party potluck, a vast network of status and favor acquires the strength of Medieval chain mail.

Which brings me to the case of one Gerald Walpin, inspector general for the federal agency that oversees AmeriCorps. Salena Zito has the best summary I have seen, at Real Clear Politics:

Walpin became the center of some media attention last week for suspending Barack Obama supporter Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and now mayor of Sacramento, for irregularities in his use of federal money when he ran a charity.

Walpin was asked by the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service to investigate the charity, St. HOPE, which received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant to tutor Sacramento students, to redevelop buildings and to develop local art and theater programs.

Walpin's investigation found that the money instead was used to sugar the salaries of the charity's staff, to get involved in a local school board election, and to make AmeriCorps volunteers attend to Johnson's personal needs, including washing his car.

Last May, Walpin's office recommended the suspension of Johnson and an assistant at St. HOPE from receiving federal money.

It's not clear that Mr. Johnson did anything illegal when he ran St. HOPE. It's pretty clear that he did a lot of stuff that was sleazy (or that had the appearance of impropriety, which is what you say when you don't want to say sleazy). John Kass has this at the Chicago Trib:

In an April deal with prosecutors in the Obama Justice Department, Johnson was not charged with a crime. But his St. HOPE Academy charity agreed to pay back half of the $850,000, including $72,000 from Johnson himself.

That looks like about $425,000 in impropriety, including at least $72,000 in personal sleaze. This is the sort of thing we inspector generals are for. But of course little sleaze has big sleaze to mind it, and that is what corrupt party bosses are for.

Ms. Zito tells us what happened next:

None of this was an issue until November, when Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento. City-hired attorneys concluded this past spring that Sacramento could be forbidden from receiving federal stimulus funds because of Johnson's suspension.

Six weeks later, Walpin got a call from a White House lawyer. The order was clear: Resign within the hour, or you will be fired. Walpin went for the firing.

Unfortunately for the Obama administration, Congress had passed the Inspectors General Reform Act - which then-Senator Obama co-sponsored - requiring a president to give Congress 30 days notice, plus an actual reason, before firing an inspector general.

Obama Incorporated says it decided to remove Walpin because, in one meeting, he was confused and disoriented. Well, Walpin is 77 and old people are like that, aren't they? Of course "confused and disoriented," if adopted as a general standard, would send most of Washington packing. But despite what some of Obama's critics have said, that looks to me like a legitimate reasons for removing an officer. If it's true, that is.

The trouble is that Kevin Johnson was a friend and a political asset (I repeat myself) of President Obama. Having an independent and legitimate reason to remove a threat to an asset would be a happy accident for the President. I am suspicious of happy accidents.

Inspector Generals, unlike independent prosecutors, don't have unrestrained leave and unlimited resources to pursue their purpose. But Congress acted to give them special protection precisely to make sure they do their job conscientiously and effectively. There is no indication Walpin did anything else.

This is Chicago politics come to Washington D.C. It's easier in a local venue, where attention spans are limited and the press underfunded. But it clearly has the potential to make the United States of America more like the windy city. It sends a message that IG's should put the network above the law. This is not an entirely good thing.

When George Bush fired a few Federal Prosecutors because they weren't prosecuting to his liking, the press went nuts. So far, the Walpin case has been slowly percolating through the online press and blogosphere. It is worth paying attention. If you think that Obama brought a new spirit to Washington, you might or might not be correct. It might be better if you are wrong.

Comments

[Erik]

KB:
As a person who served his country as an AmeriCorps VISTA and has lived in Chicago, your post has a lot of resonance. I think, that your reasoning is flawed, in assuming, that Obama is part of the "Chicago Machine." If you look at this record, he really isn't. If I recall correctly, he did run against Bobby Rush in the Democratic Primary and was thumped pretty badly. Can you please elaborate on your thesis that Obama is bringing Windy City machine politics to DC. Don't most cities have their own form of machine politics? What makes Chicago any worse or any different, than say Atlanta's machine politics?
Oh, and you forgot to mention that KJ was a helluva shooter ;-) (joking)
Erik

[Miranda]

I particularly liked the "friends and assets" line.
I also agree that many members of congress would be gone if we fired anyone who was confused or disoriented. Joe Biden would also be gone.

[George Mason]

Again we witness the liberal harmony in the media. When Bill Clinton fired every
federal prosecuter( because some were looking into the sleaze of Arkansas politics and the financial manipulations of FOB's for Bills benefit) the media yawned and proclaimed it was the Presidents prerogative. When George Bush let a handful go due to lassitude it was a "major scandal." Now that Obama is President
strong arm tactics and political protection rackets are quite accetable.

[Erik]

Mr. Mason,
Please refresh my memory, which federal prosecutors did Bill Clinton fire because they were looking into "the sleaze" of Arkansas politics. In the case of Bush the Younger, federal prosecutors were fired because they did not take orders from the political wing (ie Karl Rove) of the White House. Thus, the federal prosecutors were ousted for partisan reasons. Don't you agree that it was a mistake for Bush the Younger to do that?
Respectfully,
Erik

[A.I.]

I've read that the AmeriCorps, bipartisan board unanimously initiated/recommended the Walpin dismissal and the White House subsequently took action and that it was the board that raised the confused and disoriented issue.

Speaking of confused, I'm not understanding what good it would do to fire Walpin for suspending Johnson long after the deed was done. Was Walpin supposed to un-suspend Johnson after he had left the job, or is this supposed to be some sort of retribution to warn off others that might pick on an Obama friend?

[KB]

Erik: The Clinton Administration had its own firing scandal early on, concerning career White House staff. It was a minor scandal, but a real one. As for the Federal Prosecutors, they serve at the President's pleasure, but if he fired them for partisan reasons that was something the press should have gone after. It did, with a vengeance. Firing someone because he went after a buddy is no less partisan, but the Press seems a lot less interested.

As for machine politics, I agree that most cities have them in some form or another. But some are stronger and more corrupt than others, and Chicago is notorious. If Barack Obama had not been part of the machine, he would not have enjoyed his rise to power.

A.I., I refer you to my comment about happy accidents. The Administration tried to get Mr. Walpin to resign without a fuss, thus doing an end run around the law. When he didn't, surprise, surprise, reasons for his dismissal magically appeared. If it looks like a duck,and waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. This looks, waddles, and quacks like a machine firing.

There are obvious reasons for firing Mr. Walpin "after the deed is done." An inspector general who doesn't know that he is not supposed to go after friends of Barack is removed from office. A message is sent to other inspector generals that they will tow the line or else, as you yourself supply.

[Erik]

KB:
Ah yes, the firing of the travel staff in '93 by Clinton(s). I had forgotten about that. I see your point, but it was indeed a minor scandal. I think we have to "agree" to disagree about Chicago machine politics. Or if Obama is even part of that machine.
Erik

[A.I.]

And my question becomes, would a bipartisan board unanimously say they had instigated the dismissal process. I hardly think the Republicans on the board are part of the "machine" and I doubt the Democrats are either.

[KB]

A.I.: then Obama really does have that magic. Maybe he stuck a pin in a voodoo doll of Mr. Walpin.

[A.I.]

Magic?

[Erik]

KB:
I don't believe in "magic." How do you explain Mark Sandford's downfall? The GOP is rapidly shrinking....
Erik

[Erik]

A.I.,
KB refered to Obama's "magic"? See previous post.
Erik

[KB]

Erik: If the President tried to strong arm Mr. Walpin into resigning (he did) and when Mr. Walpin refused, reasons spontaneously arose for doing what the President wanted to do, then it is either sheer coincidence or magic. I read the Harry Potter novels, I know about these things. If this sort of thing had happened when Dubya was in charge, I'd have figured that Dubya and his people figured out a way to get what they wanted. No coincidence. No magic. I figure the same thing here.

I am surprised that you think there is no Chicago machine. Or perhaps we are talking past one another. City machines ain't what they used to be. That's a good thing. But Illinois in general, and Chicago in particular, still stand out as relatively corrupt systems. Am I wrong? Everything about Obama's Illinois career makes it look like he was part of the system. His send off by William Ayers, his support from the Dalys, the housing project scandal he was part of, all this looks like sweet home Chicago to me.