Posted on 05/17/2007 3:14:10 PM PDT by yoely
Just Breaking
I believe you meant to post against #61. But that’s OK. I think the Wolf guy is OK as far as politicans go.
I did not know that Wolf himself promoted her and raised her salary. My limited understanding was he arranged for her to transfer to another job which provided a higher salary. So I thought the receiving end was responsible for justifying her salary. Because of the conflict of interest it is not surprising that he would want her out of there. I admittedly don’t know all the precise details. So appreciate your filling me in if what you said is accurate - that Wolf himself raised her salary while she was still in his employ. Thanks I guess.
The World Bank needs to go where the United Nations should have gone a long time ago-In the Trash Bin of History.
If someone on the left did the exact things Wolfowitz did, would you also said they behaved morally?
There is absolutely nothing moral about nepotism.
Facts are your friend.
I suggest you do a little research.
Well, then please enlighten me!
I find it odd that a person would make such a statement and then not even post a simple URL if indeed the facts were on their side.
Agreed. This, unfortunately, is why the Fedgov is beyond the reach of a honest "true conservative" presidential candidate.
The next body more corrupt and unrecoverable than the Worldbank is the UN. And the only body more corrupt and unrecoverable/unmanageable than the Worldbank or the UN is the United States Federal Government.
A Ron Paul or a Duncan Hunter would be eviscerated by the bureaucrats within hours, and undercut on measure after measure without them even knowing what happened to them.
Only a Fred Thompson or a "JulieAnnie" is intellectually dirty enough to play the game and still be nominally on 'our' side.
Listen, pal. A 38 percent pay raise is extraordinary. Very few people can qualify for such a bump. Combined with guaranteed annual raises and a guaranteed job offer (with another raise) in the future? I'd be interested if one could find another instance of that anywhere.
If in your world that's status quo you must live in an interesting place.
And, if you don't think he demanded it, if in your world somehow you think poor Mr. Wolfowitz had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support this raise for the woman who he has a sexual relationship with, you have a very interesting perspective on human nature. I guess, in your mind, the presence of a top executive officer in a meeting of subordinates has nothing to do with the meeting's outcome. In your world, did Mr. Wolfowitz, try to argue something like this?
"Listen people. I've made my opinion clear. This is just too high a raise. I totally oppose this. But I'm just one voice. As you know, I staunchly believe in democracy and gosh darn it, you subordinates have more votes than I. I don't like it, but if you really think my sweetie deserves that high a raise, well, by golly, I guess I'll have to go along."
Thanks, but your attempts to write lengthy posts, full of implications that only you know what goes on when personal relationships are involved in human resource decisions doesn't pass the laugh test.
Have a nice day.
“Listen, pal. A 38 percent pay raise is extraordinary. Very few people can qualify for such a bump. Combined with guaranteed annual raises and a guaranteed job offer (with another raise) in the future? I’d be interested if one could find another instance of that anywhere.”
Again, you have nothing of the context of the World Bank, of its pay scales, of the promotion she was in line for but would not be getting due to her forced resignation, or due to standards and practices at the World Bank for how to compensate someone for the fact that they are being forced out of their job due to no fault of their own. Would the bank normally pay some kind of lump sum settlement, or would they insure higher future income in lieu of such a settlement. But, as I said, you have none of the context and you certainly have none of the context of salaries and financial compensation packages at the World Bank in general.
Thanks but your attempts to place the situation in your own context, instead of that at the World Bank, can shed no light but your misplaced rage on the subject.
“as for how he got there, he was enticed there by the girlfriend who set up her own little alternative power centers and wanted a big patron (and lover) to facilitate it”
Yea, Bush gave him the job because his girlfriend wanted him to have!! Gossip and speculation among jealous lower level staff, which the WaPo demonstrated their political bias in “reporting”.
“when the ethics committee said she couldn’t work at the bank,”
There was never any question put to “the ethics committee” about whether or not she would resign and neither she nor Wolfowitz had to ask “the ethics committee” that question. The resignation was a given beforehand and they knew it.
And more D.C. gossip substantiated by “Bob Bennett” as if any of that gossip represents any facts. Not an ounce of it can be demonstrated anywhere, not in the records or in any testimony. Little people with too much time for speculation on their hands. The WaPo “reports” would have been better printed in the National Inquirer, which is would better represent the quality of them.
Just because the staff are saying this doesn’t make it untrue. Don’t be blinded by your dislike of them, I think it makes perfect sense and explains her screaming rage at being transferred from the Bank even though the job she was being moved to, working with the US vice president’s daughter, and then at her very own think tank with a $25 million budget, were clearly better jobs than the one she had. Don’t you know anything about human nature, or for that matter, controlling Arab women? They act like that, I’ve had them for roommates in college. They’re recognizable types. I am not sure by which criteria you believe your point of view, but it hardly makes sense with how washington or human nature works. I think you’re blinded by the idea of wolfie as a helpless victim and martyr when in fact his own deeds are the cause of his undoing.
As for Bob Bennett, why are you discounting him? He is Wolf’s OWN LAWYER and fought like the dickens to defend the guy for a pretty penny.
As for the ethics committee, you are obviously unfamiliar with the basic storyline of the case, the ethics committee squelched her demand to work at the bank alongside her boyfriend, knowing full well the two of them would politick together to feather their nests and those of their tight circle of cronies, to the detriment of the bank. Yes, the ethics committee said she could not be working at the bank at the same time wolf was leading it, that’s why she was ‘seconded’ to the state department working with liz cheney and then to her own think tank. Aren’t you even aware of this?
ping for later
I’m not your teacher.
I solute your efforts here - even if they fail.
“Instead of defending his loyal people, Bush has backed down repeatedly in the face of left wing pressure.”
Unless you are pro amnesty......then Bush will protect you.
You’re swatting at flies and the wrong ones at that.
The entire process of her transfer to the State Dept (1) was over two years ago, (2)was clear, in it’s particulars, to all the directors two yeas ago and, (3)was not made any issue by any official - among everyone who knew about it - not two years ago and not since, until (4)someone at the bank (most likely at the instigation of one or more directors) decided to MAKE a PUBLIC issue of matters than none of them had made an official issue, until then.
The entire process, in all its particulars, is not a “scandal” in the context of the official shenanigans, rampant nepotism, huge salaries and highly political and politicized appointments and promotions at the World Bank - a context that is institutionalized in the World Bank.
The taking, by certain directors and staff at the World Bank, of any of the particulars involving Wolfowitz and masquerading any of it as “scandal” - as contrary to many of their own inner dealings and the overall context of the environment at the World Bank - is a joke and it is only possible to have succeeded at masquerading as a “scandal” to the public and the public alone, because the shear hypocrisy of it - in the context of the World Bank - has not and will not be given equal exposure, to the public.
Thus, politically it is a public charade in which the actual, and very political motives of certain European directors - the root cause of their attack on Wolfowitz - has nothing to do with any “scandal” in how his girlfriend was dealt with. Those dealings were no more than an excuse and an excuse that could only be successful with continued public ignorance of just how much 100% of the financial arrangements in the resignation of the girlfriend of the head the World Bank was only termed a “scandal”, by certain World Bank directors because, and only because the head of the World Bank was Wolfowitz. If the head of the World Bank had been “one of them”, their official lack of any objection at the time of the “deal” would have remained their position today.
That is what is important, and not ANY of the particulars. Were it otherwise in any sense, the “scandal” would have began immediately, two years ago, not last month. The rest is political smoke and mirrors.
Not my favorite source, but http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=192571 reports:
In statements to the Bank's board, Wolfowitz has pointed to Riza's candidacy for the communications adviser post as a reason for awarding her a $47,340 compensation increase. "This raise is about double what you'd be allowed to get if you got that promotion," the official familiar with these deliberations said. "For Wolfowitz to use the argument that she was short-listed goes against what the committee said about her two years before. It does not justify the salary increase."
The Riza deal included more than that first big pay hike and annual increases. It also essentially guaranteed Riza subsequent promotions to higher pay grades. And the deal would provide her the yearly pay increases for up to ten years, if Wolfowitz remained at the Bank for a second term. By the end of a second Wolfowitz term, Riza, were she to stay a Bank employee, would make close to $400,000, possibly more.
These pay increases would lead to an outsized pension. According to a Bank source familiar with the institution's pension rules and formulas, pensions for Bank retirees are based on the average salary of an employee's last three years at the Bank. Under the Wolfowitz deal, Riza could expect an annual pension of about $110,000, if she retired in 2015 (assuming Wolfowitz served two terms). If Wolfowitz had not awarded her that initial salary hike of nearly $50,000 and she instead received steady annual raises of 4 percent over this ten-year period, her pension would be about $56,000. With the Wolfowitz deal, Riza could look forward to a rather comfortable pension.
(highlights mine)
Or, if you prefer: http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2007-05-16-wolfowitz-cover-usat_N.htm
Riza was no ordinary staffer. She was Wolfowitz's girlfriend, and though no one could have foreseen it at the time, the handling of her career would eventually pose a threat to his tenure, the United States' traditional hold over the global lending body and the Bush administration's relations with Europe.
The next day, Wolfowitz directed Coll to transfer Riza to a State Department job and raise her pay by $47,340 — more than twice what bank rules allowed — to $180,000, says the board panel investigating the affair. Wolfowitz, who says the outsize paycheck was needed to keep Riza from suing the bank, insists he was merely implementing guidance from the bank's ethics committee.
(highlights mine)
Or maybe this: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/06/341/:
Payroll data obtained from the World Bank and made public Thursday by GAP show that Riza, a communications officer in the Bank’s Middle East Office, who is currently working in an external assignment at the U.S. State Department, received a 47,300 dollar, or 35.5 percent, raise to 180,000 dollars after Wolfowitz arrived.
This raise was followed last year by another 13,590 dollar raise, or about 7.5 percent, to a total salary of 193,590 dollars.
“If World Bank staff rules had been respected, she was not to receive percentage increases greater than 12 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. Her current salary of 193,590 dollars is about seven thousand dollars more than what [U.S.] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earns,” GAP said in the statement Thursday.
(highlights mine)
Again, I'm not a big fan of these sources, but it is interesting that they seem quite different from what you claim. Also, unlike what I've provided, I notice a distinct lack of evidence to support your blustering about how ignorant many of us are about how the World Bank operates. Care to share a little proof, Wuli?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.