I’m not sure where you were in 1989 but it certainly wasn’t acceptable — at least to the liberals of the day or the progressives of the day that directly after leaving office former president Ronald Reagan decided to go to Japan for a nice little speaking tour to the tune of 2 million dollars. At that point he was a private citizen but liberals of the day rightly castigated Reagan for the seemingly unethical behavior.
TOKYO, May 9— Upset about recent strains in relations with the United States, Japan is making lavish plans to welcome former President Ronald Reagan to Tokyo later this year for 10 days of speeches, ceremonies and visits with business and political leaders.
The size of the final bid was unclear, as was the size of Mr. Reagan's final negotiated fee. But Charles Z. Wick, former director of the United States Information Agency and a longtime Reagan associate, said Mr. Reagan would receive ''an attractive honorarium.'' He declined to give details. Mr. Wick has served as Mr. Reagan's emissary in arranging for the visit, which is to begin around Oct. 19.
A person involved in the negotiations said Mr. Wick had been concerned that the bidding over the sponsorship of the visit might implicate Mr. Reagan in Japan's spreading influence-peddling scandal, which led Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita to announce his resignation last month.
The scandal has involved illicit payments to Japanese politicians by major Japanese business corporations, and Mr. Wick was said to have been worried that Mr. Reagan could be seen as tainted if he accepted money indiscriminately from Japanese businesses.
Conservatives of the day then presented this argument as to why it was acceptable for Reagan to take the cash even if it gave the appearance that Reagan’s statements during office and actions before leaving indicated that he was being paid for services previously rendered and not for the glory of hearing the man speak.
Ronald Reagan's $2-Million Speaking Fee
I find it highly amusing that the few quaint liberals remaining in the United States are suffering acute dyspepsia over Ronald Reagan's $2-million fee from a Japanese corporation.I believe that either liberals are revealing the socialist underpinnings of their ossified philosophy, or they are just straight out envious and covetous (please see: Ten Commendments).
How much compensation Reagan, or Lee Iacocca or the San Diego Chicken pull down is really none of the business of our currently frustrated social engineering cadre. We are not only worth what someone will pay for our services, but required morally to seek that sum for our well-being.
DAVID CARL KOLPACOFF
El Cajon
Many here wondered over the years exactly why President Obama was pursuing several policy positions that were antithetical to the democratic party. We were scratching our heads wondering why President Obama was pushing for the TPP so hard when his base and nearly the entire Union structure in the U.S was coming out against it. In a Machiavelli move President Obama had the nerve to appear at the congressional baseball game lobbying for fast track authority to pass the TPP. It was as if House of Cards had instantly come to life.
Obama then walked over to the Republicans’ dugout. As he strode across the field, fans in the GOP section chanted “TPA,” an acronym for the fast-track trade bill that will be voted on Friday. Obama gave a smile and a thumbs-up.
The TPP ultimately came to nothing with 45 railing against it on the campaign trail. The orange shit gibbon was able to adopt the mantle of being the savior of the working class falsely the entire time and President Obama gave him the fodder he needed by continuing to court the TPP and republicans for their support.
How did fast track authority pass in the House again? With overwhelming support from republicans and the defection of such ardent progressives as Debbie Wasserman Shultz. It was difficult for the party to recconcille that the chair of the DNC was voting for fast track authority while 95% of the House democrats were voting against fast track authority.
It’s difficult to claim the moral high ground when republicans block you on everything for years but then suddenly this becomes the bi-partisan sacred cow that no one knew why Obama was chasing.
Now the TPP was one thing. There was however that pesky fact that the Obama White House had failed to prosecute any white collar criminals after the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression.
Per Bill Moyers:
September 15th marked the fifth anniversary of Wall Street giant Lehman Brothers going into bankruptcy, which precipitated the Great Recession that lingers on today —it remains the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. To date, no executives have faced prosecution for the widespread mortgage fraud that fueled the bubble.
The savings and loan debacle was one-seventieth the size of the current crisis, both in terms of losses and the amount of fraud. In that crisis, the savings and loan regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals, and this produced over 1,000 felony convictions in cases designated as “major” by the Department of Justice. But even that understates the degree of prioritization, because we, the regulators, worked very closely with the FBI and the Justice Department to create a list of the top 100 — the 100 worst fraud schemes. They involved roughly 300 savings and loans and 600 individuals, and virtually all of those people were prosecuted. We had a 90 percent conviction rate, which is the greatest success against elite white-collar crime (in terms of prosecution) in history.
After the Great Recession played out and our government bailed the banks out the DoJ assumed the position of:
U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told lawmakers that some financial institutions have become “so large” that it makes it “difficult for us to prosecute them.”
Which in turn led to Occupy Wall Street since you know, protest movements happen when politicians are responsive to the concerns of the people. /s.
Why were there no prosecutions of anyone? Why change the structure of punishment against institutions from jail time to paying fines. Most of the judgements against the large institutions amounted to penny’s on the dollar vs the billions and trillions of wealth that has been transferred to the top 0.1% of the country under Obama.
Now — getting to this very day. We are in a tremendous fight for the heart and soul of not only the democratic party, but resisting a president that is making liberals wax poetically about missing George W. Bush. That’s some crazy shit.
Our party, activists, and officials are going to need everyone on deck in order to resist the evil white supremacist in the White House. One of the biggest goals we need to accomplish in the next two years is taking back the House or Senate from the republicans and regaining at least one lever of the federal government back away from the insane people.
The 2018 mid terms are going to be crucial.
I would have loved it if President Obama had decided to join the resistance and defend his legacy. It would have been fantastic if after all these years Obama finally found that pair of comfy shoes he talked about in 2007. It would have been great if he decided, already a millionaire, to write another great book about his experiences. I would have loved it if he had decided to follow Jimmy Carters model and commit his life to acts of good deeds.
Now, it’s only been 3 months since leaving office. I’m happy that President Obama hasn’t yet joined a lobbying firm.
"Honest Leadership and Open Government Act" when it was signed by President George W. Bush in 2007."
Legal and legislative restrictions on Washington's infamous revolving door always come with grand ambitions and grandiose titles. The most important statute limiting lobbying by former senators and representatives, for instance, was dubbed the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act" when it was signed by President George W. Bush in 2007.
The law prohibited ex-senators and top executive branch officials from lobbying Congress for two years after their Capitol Hills service ended; former Representatives had to wait one year. Then-Sen. Barack Obama called it "the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate."
If that's so, the bar must have been set pretty low. A joint study published Tuesday by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation reveals that of the 104 former federal legislators and staffers whose restrictions ended in time for Tuesday's opening of the 114th Congress, 29 are already in government relations,"public affairs," or employed as counsel to lobbying-oriented law firms. But only 13 of them are formally registered as lobbyists.
The Honest Leadership Act, as it turned out, didn't end revolving-door lobbying by former members of Congress or their aides; it just drove it underground into a category the Sunlight Foundation calls "stealth" lobbying. Obama's executive order extending the two-year lobbying ban to all executive branch appointees taking office after his inauguration didn't do much to stop the rotating door.
Since Obama has decided not to join a lobbying firm he has instead decided to join the corporate speaking circuit to the tune of 400,000k per speech for an hours worth of work. Good for him! He’s a private citizen! Oy Vei.
It’s been like three months. This behavior by Obama is going to totally undermine the efforts of the democratic party to say that it is reforming itself. It’s going to make it extremely if not impossible for democrats to claim that they are getting out from under the yoke of Wall Street when the reality is that the former president is cashing out months after leaving office.
He has a right to make money. He doesn’t need to do it in a highly charged and unethical way. Even the mere whiff of impropriety should have been enough to make a man such as he decline such an offer.
It casts a horrible light on DNC chair Perez since the entire party leadership, unions, and progressive organizations had come out for Keith Ellison. The only one who wanted Perez was Obama. When Perez was asked if he should not accept contributions from large donors he gave the tired stock answer that the party could not unilaterally disarm against republicans. Then, what was Perez’s first action as DNC chair? You go look it up.
We won’t be able to take back the House, the Senate, or local government until democrats shed their addiction to corporate cash and shed the reality that they are serving moneyed interests over the will of the people. Our senate and house is already 90% made up of millionaires. Or was it 95%? I forget.
I want to be able to have electoral victories again and make progress on issues. Unethical behavior such as this undermines our movement, restoring faith in the process, and taking back the 1000+ seats our party has lost on the federal, and local level.
If you find yourself making this argument:
I find it highly amusing that the few quaint liberals remaining in the United States are suffering acute dyspepsia over Ronald Reagan's $2-million fee from a Japanese corporation.
How much compensation Reagan, or Lee Iacocca or the San Diego Chicken pull down is really none of the business of our currently frustrated social engineering cadre. We are not only worth what someone will pay for our services, but required morally to seek that sum for our well-being.
Well done, you’ve just validated 1980s republican thought.