The Corrupting Power Of Public Pension Funds

Author:
Publish date:
Updated on

"Mr. Gibbs, some questions have come up recently linking [x] to..."
"[x] has the full confidence of President Obama."
"But don't you think [x]'s connection..."
"[x] has the full confidence of the President."
"But don't you think that given the environment of bailouts and workouts and bankruptcies..."
"Look, [x] is not accused of any wrongdoing yet and he's not likely to face and criminal or civil charges as it relates to this."
"You've spoken to the prosecutors then?"
"We've known about this for some time."
"You have?"
"I mean to say, we were informed about the pending investigation."
"Before the appointment?"
"The President has total confidence in [x]. We don't expect these revelations to cast a shadow over [y]."
(Let [x] = an array...)
It isn't hard to see how a concentration of fund allocation power in a single political figurehead (or even a pliant board) quickly leads to these kinds of problems. The Wall Street Journal is only the most obvious Op-Ed hammering away on the power structure and its potential for abuse. (And, of course, they ask the obvious question we presented to you last week. "Why would a smart guy invest in a movie named 'Chooch'?").
Eventually someone is going to have to have more to say about this sort of thing than "[x] has my full confidence." Who and when is an open question.
Obama backs auto czar Rattner [CNN Money]

Related