1 post tagged “public ethics”

Northwest Indiana's The Times newspaper has finally openly criticized one of their own, Congressman Peter Visclosky, the U. S. Congressman from Northwest Indiana's (NWI) First Congressional District.  The Time's criticism is in the following two articles: Visclosky_at_center_of_Washington_pork_storm.mht and Tech_center_churns_out_Visclosky_campaign_cash.mht. 

It is gratifying that The Times has finally come around shining a light on Visclosky, the dubious (at best) rationale for the Purdue Incubator Tech Center, and the collusion of Purdue University, specifically under former President Jischke, in these events. 

There are three aspects to this story, and they are the following:

• Congressman Visclosky has been getting one of the highest amount of pork barrel legislation through Congress and this has been of little help in developing NWI or even showing up in NWI.
• Congressman Visclosky has been by most reasonable standards and evaluations getting a kick- back, in the form of campaign contributions, from the companies he has provided funds for as a Congressman
• Congressman Visclosky, in collusion with Purdue University, seems to have gotten funds for an incubator tech center which is NOT an incubator and its sole purpose seems to be to help him raise money for his campaign account and enrich his friends and backers in NWI.

Congressman Visclosky is known as Congressman "Oink-oink" by the rest of the Country.  To see his great name in lights (not reported in NWI), I ask you to see this reference: The_freedom_fighter's_journal_oink_oink_i_smell_a_pork_barrel_politician.mht  In this commentary our own Congressman Oink-Oink turns over $2 million of tax payers money to a "natural healing" research laboratory in northern Virginia.  It just, accidentally of course, happens that the family owners of this natural healing emporium have been big donors to Oink-Oink's campaign fund.

Now another of the major commentaries about our illustrious Congressman is presented in this national perspective: Congressman_Peter_Visclosky.htm.  Here we have a new national name for Congressman Oink-Oink, "Rent-a-Congressman."  It seems that although Visclosky claims to be anti-war he has no problem with putting lots of money in defense contractor's pocket if they will line his campaign fund pockets.

"Just ask the good folks at PMA Group, a lobbying firm. They sank $1,333,074 into the campaigns last year of 3 Democratic members of the House defense appropriations subcommittee and walked away with $100.5 million in defense earmarks for PMA clients, Roll Call reported."

The PMA Group provided over 33% of all the funding in our "Rent-a-Congressman's" campaign funds.  Defense contractors of all types were the main source of funding for Visclosky's campaign.  In return, he provided all of them with millions and millions of tax payer dollars with directed earmarked programs for their benefit.  Most of this money did not go to NWI, nor help NWI in economic development or job creation.  (To remind him, NWI is the district he represents.)  Its only purpose, as best as anyone can tell, is to line the campaign fund of the Congressman. The following says a whole lot about the perception of Visclosky's corruption: "Richard Kaelin went from being Visclosky’s chief of staff to lobbying for PMA."

For most people, this behavior doesn't pass the "sniff" test (it smells bad). In my direct opinion what he has done is illegal, unethical, and corrupt.  Can it be proven that there is a direct connection between Visclosky providing millions of dollars to defense contractors with him receiving over a third of his huge campaign funds from them?  Probably not; legally the laws of evidence make it difficult.  But it certainly doesn't pass the "sniff test" -- the "man on the street" test says that it stinks of quid-pro-quo corruption. For 2008, PMA has already committed to providing over $500,000 to Visclosky and two other Democratic Congressman.

Then there is the earmark (your money sent to a contractor) that Congressman Visclosky did not even know whether or not the company actually existed.  Read about Visclosky's easy mis-use of the taxpayer's money in the following:

Pork_barrel_spending:_how_$7000_in_political_contributions_will_get_you_a_$1_million_earmark.mht

You really cannot make this stuff up.  Visclosky is sending a million dollars to a company that he does not even know whether or not it actually exists and he does not care if he admits it publicly.

Finally there is the seemingly obvious collusion between Purdue University and Congressman Visclosky.  The "politico corrupticus" syndrome that afflicts Purdue University Calumet, a regional campus of Purdue University, as manifested in the unholy alliance between its Chancellor, Howard Cohen, and locally elected Democrats is now verifiably known to exist at the highest levels of Purdue University as it made an unholy alliance with our illustrious U.S. Congressman, Pete Visclosky as it relates to the business incubator in south Lake County, Indiana. 

Visclosky claimed that he got the $7.5 million pork barrel Federal funds to create an incubator for new technology businesses.  That seems to be a flat out lie -- some may say f-r-a-u-d-u-l-e-n-t.  Remember, the funds that Visclosky received were both to build the building and to allow for at least one year of operation -- and this is important -- to incubate businesses. 

Why was this a lie and fraud?  Because the businesses were not incubator businesses.  From the beginning, the Technology Center housed representatives of huge defense contractors.  Large established businesses -- like huge defense contractors -- don't really need incubated, do they?  But, as an apparent favor to Visclosky these defense contractors set-up shop at our very own Purdue federally funded business incubator.  And, from the national story in The Times, now we -- in part -- know why: to get large consistent funds into his campaign coffers. This seems like fraudulent use of federal funds to me. Seriously folks, would a business that needs to be incubated have all that excess cash to funnel into Visclosky's campaign coffers?  I think not.   

I have been talking about this since I first saw the list of companies at the Tech Center and instantly recognized them as some of the biggest defense contractors in Washington D. C.  Ever since then, I have been writing and telling about the fraud that was occurring and the fact that it had nothing to do with NWI economic development.  Even the local FBI and the U. S. Attorney are aware of this "problem"; but it seems their hands are tied in actually getting "evidence".  I always argued that Purdue University and its former President, Jischke, was lying to all of us in NWI when Jischke argued that the Tech Center in Merrillville was an engine of economic development.  In fact, no other incubator argued for and developed by Purdue under Jischke located the incubator so far away from the Purdue campus with which it is suppose to be associated.  This makes the association between the incubator and Purdue University meaningless.  But, maybe it had something to do with the $400,000 retention bonus Jischke took home this year from Purdue University's coffers for being President for three years.  This was just reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education.

So you have Purdue University colluding....ah, I'm sorry, cooperating with Congressman Visclosky (Oink-Oink) to build and operate with Federal funds an incubator that does not incubate and a business park that cannot attract business without payola.  Gosh, it all sounds so cozy, doesn't it?

Note: To Congressman Visclosky. Please be sure -- as a duly elected public servant -- who is my public servant, to take a play out of the "political corrupticus" handbook of the local Democrats here in NWI and call Chancellor Cohen and complain.  (This is the play book developed by the NWI mastodon politicians operating under the sociologist Max Weber's Tribal Political Model.)  Or, what the heck, go for the "big" complaint to Purdue's new President Cordova.  Heck, you may even try to get me fired.  Why not?  Your fellow Democratic colleagues here in NWI have tried that as well.  It just would not be fair if you did not get your turn.  (Unless you have already taken it and I have not been "properly" informed.)  Remember, this is exactly what the first amendment is meant to protect: it is meant to ensure that you, as my public servant, are free from any criticism and that you have the G-d given constitutional right to ask fellow State employees such Chancellor Cohen, Dean Dan Dunn or even my acting Department Head Richard Rupp (all bound by federal and state laws as you are) to take my job.  I mean, it would all be for the betterment of our fine Republic and to ensure that democracy lasts.  After all, no elected official in a Democratic society should have to suffer any unwanted criticism.  It's in the Constitution, isn't it?  And, hey, if the outright request doesn't work, fabricating harassment claims just might do the trick.  After all, other NWI Democrats have done that too.