Democracy and Society » corruption

Bribes versus campaign finance

Barak — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 06:18:42 +0000

Here’s a funny thing about the United States. If a police officer pulls me over for speeding and I offer to give said officer $100 if he/she forgets that I was speeding, that’s called a bribe and it is illegal. Yet if Corporation X helps elect a politician by spending a lot of money and that politician subsequently writes a law providing Corporation X with favorable tax treatment, it’s called free speech and is legal. Is there anything troubling and just a wee bit hypocritical about this?

Other

Busted

Barak — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 05:00:52 +0000

The US Government is accusing AED, “a nonprofit organization working globally to improve education, health, civil society and economic development” of serious financial misconduct and conflicts of interest:

The U.S. government Wednesday took the unusual step of banning an American firm from being awarded new federal contracts due to evidence of “serious corporate misconduct” uncovered in an investigation of the company’s work on aid programs in Pakistan and Afghanistan…

The investigation revealed evidence of collusion between vendors and AED, resulting in overpayment for certain goods, the report said. The investigation also discovered that AED had inappropriately hired relatives of a person hired by USAID to oversee the program.

This is quite a big deal. AED’s operating budget is about $400,000,000 and I doubt it can survive without USG funding. The optics of this aren’t real good at the moment, either. Congress always loves to bash USAID and there’s never a better time to do it then when it needs to look like it’s doing something to control “wasteful government spending”.

Update: The rumor mill reports that the Chief of Party for the project will be charged with embezzlement and has fled to Russia. Developing…

Other

Money talks

Barak — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:12:26 +0000

That Karzai’s been taking money from Iran has been all over the news. This is not a surprise. Anyone who has watched Casino would have seen it coming. As Joe Pesci (Nicky Santoro) sagely observed:

You gotta know that a guy who helps you steal – even if you take care of him real well – he’s gonna steal a little extra for himself. Makes sense, don’t it?

Nicky was referring to casino workers who were stealing from the casino owners. How does this relate to Afghanistan? Karzai has been wearing an “Open for Business” sign around his neck since George W. Bush & Co.”persuaded” him to become Afghanistan’s president. That he would take bribes from pretty much anyone who offers them is exactly what Nicky would expect.

Other

The system

Barak — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:21:20 +0000

If Afghanistan created Karzai rather than the other way around, then getting rid of the man will not solve the problem.

Other

C is for corruption

Barak — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:13:54 +0000

Is the opportunity for graft the reason they are so interested in being in the government in the first place?

Other

Corruption

Barak — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:33:37 +0000

That Afghanistan is the most corrupt country in the world is not a surprise: lots of money and little oversight almost guarantee such an outcome.

Other

Karzai’s Paradox

Barak — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:20:05 +0000

Some in the US government are furious at Hamid Karzai because he is blocking attempts to investigate corruption. Others in the US government are the counter-parties to many of these bribes. These guys say the mugwumps don’t understand that bribes are the only way we can get the intel we need. We tend to call these no win situations. From now on, I think I will refer to them as Karzai’s Paradox.

Other

Mugwumps in the Kush

Barak — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:55:43 +0000

A cynical take on why the Obama administration is so focused on fighting corruption in Afghanistan:

Insofar as the Afghan government refuses to deliver on the promises our [US government] money has purchased, it has to be challenged. It has to be made to understand that a failure to take at least some steps toward reform will eventually produce unpleasant consequences, as American support, already wavering, dwindles down to a few hardcore neocons gathered together in a single room. All of which is to say, Washington’s current fight against corruption is mainly about American, not Afghan, hearts and minds.

Representative Nita Lowey’s recent circus hearings on corruption in Afghanistan lend some credibility to this argument.

Other

Corruption in Afghanistan

Barak — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:43:16 +0000

Don’t blame USAID alone. At least that’s what I argue at Budget Insight.

Other

Here’s a hypocritical and ineffective idea

Barak — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:38:25 +0000

Readers of the blog know that I am not a real big fan of the war in Afghanistan. That being said, the House appropriation’s subcommittee on foreign affairs decision to cut $4 billion in aid to Afghanistan, but not cut the $110 billion military funding request is both hypocritical and ineffective. I am not sure which angers me more. The subcommittee claims they want to cut aid to reduce corruption, yet because aid is such a small part of the budget for Afghanistan and because most of the corruption comes from military spending, cutting aid will have a negligible effect on corruption.

If the subcommittee really cared about ensuring US taxpayer funds don’t fuel corruption in Afghanistan, it would cut defense appropriations. The DOD’s response would likely be that “corruption is a part of doing business in Afghanistan, so we can’t fight the war without bribing people.” This is exactly the point and it seems a little unfair to single out USAID for wasting taxpayers’ money there. The US is in Afghanistan because the Taliban poses a national security threat to the US (according to the US Government), yet the Government in Afghanistan it is trying to build is very corrupt. How does raking USAID over the coals help fix this problem? (Banging head on desk.)

FWIW, I don’t think aid to Afghanistan will be cut because DOD wants these projects.

Other