corruption

That's a really big if, Rob.

If Speaker Tillis and Senate President Pro Tem Berger have any interest in doing the right thing, they should cancel the special legislative session scheduled for next Thursday immediately.

Truth is, none of the Tarheel Taliban has any interest in doing the right thing. They're on a whacked-out power trip ... and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

Be sure to click the picture for a good laugh.

Thom Tillis has a tough decision to make: Allow his BFF Stephen LaRoque to keep stinking up the North Carolina House of Representatives, or send the Kinston crook packing. Given that Tillis is already proving to be just another power-hungry pol, I'm betting he gives LaRoque a pass. Mr. Speaker is starting to look an awful lot like old Jim Black.

From the Financial Times :

Big US banks in talks with state prosecutors to settle claims of improper mortgage practices have been offered a deal that is proposed to limit part of their legal liability in return for a multibillion dollar payment.

The talks aim to settle allegations that the companies – Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial – illegally seized the homes of delinquent borrowers and broke state laws by employing so-called “robosigners”, workers who signed off on foreclosure documents en masse without reviewing the paperwork.

From Democracy NC about a protest of a GOP lobbyist fundraising event:

Republicans Jump on Chance to Raise Money from PACs;
Critics Say Fundraiser Fuels A Pay-to-Play System

While the NC General Assembly is on a 24-day recess, House Republicans are taking quick advantage of a loophole in state law to sponsor a major fundraising event this Wednesday and solicit contributions of up to $5,000 from political action committees (PACs) that are barred from giving while the General Assembly is in session.

New study on privatization claims it simply does not work, and documents it. In fact, privatization sucks.

Here are some impacts the Cornell University Hebdon Report found that result from privatization:

-diminished quality and access to services

-lower employee morale, productivity and training

-worker exploitation through lower wages and benefits

-increased discrimination against minorities and women

-loss of government control and sovereignty

-lost constitutional and other legal rights

-decreased efficiency as a result of difficulty monitoring and administrating contracts

-loss of accountability and control

lost infrastructure

-increased corruption, bribery, kickbacks, bid-rigging, campaign donations, low-ball bids, and contractor bankruptcy

-higher direct costs or hidden costs to pay for the loss of pensions and benefits of public employees

-increased conflict, strikes, grievances, and arbitrations

Got a simple little story for you today of a multinational corporation that wants to build a great big cement plant in North Carolina really, really, bad, and the local opposition to what appears to be a corrupt and distorted decision process.

Celgard, LLC is going green, in more ways than one. The Charlotte-based company has received more than $52 million in taxpayer money from the federal and local governments.

Apologies if this has been posted; did a search and did not find it. From the Feb 22, 2010 edition of The Nation -- I believe it sums up the feelings of many progressive voters very well:

How to Get Our Democracy Back

If You Want Change, You Have to Change Congress
By Lawrence Lessig

We should remember what it felt like one year ago, as the ability to recall it emotionally will pass and it is an emotional memory as much as anything else. It was a moment rare in a democracy's history. The feeling was palpable--to supporters and opponents alike--that something important had happened. America had elected, the young candidate promised, a transformational president. And wrapped in a campaign that had produced the biggest influx of new voters and small-dollar contributions in a generation, the claim seemed credible, almost intoxicating, and just in time.

So we are now finding out the answers to some of our questions about which members of Congress actually represent We, the People...and which ones represent, Them, the Corporate Masters.

We have seen a Democratic Senator propose a policy that would put people in jail for not buying health insurance and a Democratic President who has taken numerous public beatings from those on the left side of the fence for his inability to ram something through a group of people...and yes, folks, the entendre was intentional.

But most of all, we’ve been asking ourselves: “why would Democratic Members of Congress who will eventually want us to vote for them vote against something that nearly all voting Democrats are inclined to vote for?”

Today’s conversation attempts to answer that question by looking at exactly how money and influence flow through a key politician, Montana’s Senator Max Baucus—and in doing so, we examine some ugly political realities that have to be resolved before we can hope to convince certain Members of Congress to vote for what their constituents actually want when it really counts.