Here is some information to think about. Congressman Dave Reichert is running for election to again be one of Washington's Representatives in Congress. After his initial good old boy appearances with President Bush, he (or his aides) do not do a good job of assuring the public they even read for content and meaning letters from their constituents. No matter what comments and concerns are sent, responses are evasive and do not directly answer the concerns expressed to him in the letters, and in fact the same kind of form letter is sent in return, rah rah, "Don't you worry; we support Boeing no matter what awful thing they allegedly have done or not done."

Republican Dave Reichert is being challenged by Democrat, Darcy Burner, in the 2008 elections for Congress in Washington State. I for one, after reviewing this material and seeing the lack of informed responsiveness in his replies, hope there will be a defeat in Reichert's future. –GFS
**********************************************************************
See the following for a bit of history:

July 27, 2007
Dear
I found this editorial that was written a year ago, after the infamous Boeing “Tanker Deal” and find that the problems described and the questions being asked are still germane to the problems we continue to have with Boeing and with parts of the government itself today. What is being done to stop this pattern of waste fraud and abuse by contractors and what appears to be ineffective handling of it by the Attorney’s General and other government offices?

Sincerely

---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Scandal After the Boeing Scandals
By Robert Weissman
Posted July 11, 2006 | 07:47 AM (EST)

The United States treats its petty criminals harshly, and not just the worst offenders.

If you get caught selling small amounts of marijuana, or get caught stealing on a couple occasions, you are liable to get a significant jail term. Once you get out, you may well find you have to pay thousands of dollars in court costs and other fees. Get placed on probation, and you may have to pay the costs of your probation officer.
You may be deprived of your right to vote. You will find it very hard to get a job.
On the other hand, the crimes of corporations get treated with kid gloves. Leave aside for a moment the treatment of individual executives -- that's a topic for another day -- to consider how light the treatment is for corporations that commit crimes.

The latest evidence is a remarkable deal the government just entered with Boeing.
In May, the Justice Department announced a tentative agreement with Boeing to resolve two entirely separate and quite serious cases of apparent criminal wrongdoing.

The deal looked scandalous in May. But then the final agreement was announced just before the July 4 weekend, and it turns out to be worse than anyone could have anticipated.

Both of the instances of Boeing's wrongdoing involved major offenses against the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers. They both involved projects of considerable importance to Boeing. And in both cases the company's conduct was extraordinarily egregious; these were not failures to comply with arcane rules, but theft of a competitor's proprietary data to facilitate bid-rigging and a quid pro quo arrangement with a government contracting officer to facilitate a massive government overpayment for a weapons system of very questionable benefit.

In the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program scandal, Boeing acquired 25,000 pages of bidding documents from its sole competitor, Lockheed Martin. It then used the information to set its bids just below those of Lockheed. The government and taxpayers were thus cheated of the benefits of genuine competition.

In the elaborate Darleen Druyan affair, Air Force contracting officer Druyan admitted doing a variety of "favors" for Boeing. In the Pentagon's misguided deal to lease rather than buy tankers from Boeing, Druyan admitted that she "agreed to a higher price for the aircraft than she believed was appropriate." Boeing reciprocated for these gifts -- ripoffs of taxpayer money -- by hiring her. Her hiring was managed at the highest levels of the company, involving then-Chief Financial Officer Michael Sears.

Despite the gravity of the corporate wrongdoing in the two cases, Boeing is going to get off with payment to resolve civil claims and a $50 million "monetary penalty." Not a criminal penalty, mind you, because Boeing is not being charged with any crimes, nor acknowledging that it might have been, based on the evidence. The company gets to avoid the reputational harm of a criminal plea -- or even a criminal charge -- and Lockheed won't be able to use any Boeing concession of criminal wrongdoing in the companies' ongoing civil litigation (which, incidentally, might be resolved by the two firms' rocket launch divisions merging).

For extensive materials on these cases, check out the good work of the Project on Government Oversight.
Non-prosecution deals like the Boeing agreement are the norm, not an exception. My frequent co-author Russell Mokhiber of Corporate Crime Reporter issued a study this past December which found that there were at least 34 non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements with large corporations between 1992 and 2005 -- with more than two thirds of the cases occurring since 2002.

But there are a few novel features of the Boeing deal.
First, it settles two entirely separate cases at once. One factor the Department of Justice is supposed to use in deciding whether to prosecute criminally is whether a company is a repeat offender. Here, we know Boeing is -- because the no-prosecute deal itself resolves repeat offenses.

Ralph Nader and I have written to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, asking him to undo the Boeing deal and formally reassess the routinized use of deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements for large corporations. Our letter is here.
The basic idea behind non-prosecution or deferred prosecution deals is that prosecutors can extract commitments for corporate reforms that are more far-reaching than what they would have achieved with a criminal prosecution. A key element in all of these deals is that the company benefiting from the deal promises not to repeat the behavior that got them in trouble in the first place.

The second novel feature of the Boeing deal is how Boeing's lawyers restricted this pledge. As Russell Mokhiber first noted, under the terms of the actual agreement -- which the Justice Department only made available after Russell harrassed them -- if a non-executive level Boeing employee violates the agreement, that doesn't count as a violation by Boeing. "Drawing the line between executives and other employees is a little crude," said Columbia University Law Professor John Coffee. "I don't think you want to tell non-executive employees they are legally immune and can't get the company in trouble. You want the company monitoring all employees." That's not all. Under the terms of the actual agreement, if an executive commits a violation but the company turns them in, that doesn't count as a violation either. Russell and I wrote about these remarkable provisions -- which means to a considerable extent that Boeing can't violate the agreement with the Justice Department even if it does violate the agreement -- here.

While Congress is going through the Kabuki dance of considering flag-burning amendments, the real business of Washington goes on.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

July 27, 2007

Dear Congressman Reichert,

I just read this article in Forbes regarding Boeing once again being allowed to pay to avoid alleged crimes being prosecuted. This case is about small things like nuts and bolts. Obviously, that is being taken seriously as wrongdoing here, as Boeing had to pay over a million dollars, a small sum in the grand view of things. However, the other case I know you know about, which after being passed along like the plague by various federal criminal investigative agencies continues to roil about in case development stages in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and appears to be having a hard time being effectively accomplished. This case is about Boeing appropriating and using for their own purposes and then billing repeatedly I am told, Research and Development (R&D), which was already paid for by the government previously to the tune of millions or billions of dollars. If they can be held accountable for negligible sums of money, why are they allowed to cheat and steal with impunity when we are talking vast sums of money? To use a simple analogy, why is it easier for Justice Dept. to go after people for stealing a chair off the porch, than hold defense contractors accountable for the theft of the entire, house, barn and herds of livestock, which is occurring right in front of the government’s eyes?

Also, why does the government make it so hard for people who are with the government’s best interests in focus reporting these unethical and criminal acts? Why are these people called whistleblowers, and then punished for being responsible? And finally, why won’t the government, all branches make sure laws are passed which protect all such government employees from retribution and harassment and destruction of their lives for just doing their jobs? Are all parts of government so corrupted and ineffective, they really cannot hold the line and clean this up?


Sincerely,



Please see summary of article and link to Forbes article I refer to below:



Forbes reports in “Boeing to Pay $1M to Settle Bills Claims” July 16, 2007, that the Boeing Company has agreed to pay more than $1 million to settle allegations that the company over billed for materials used in installing new KC-135 aircraft engines. U.S. attorney’s announced this Monday, July 16. Forbes story available at: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/16/ap3919116.html

U.S. attorney, Eric Melgren, is quoted as saying “that the government alleged that Boeing double-billed for materials used in modernizing KC-135 Stratotankers and RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft. Materials double billed included nuts, bolts, rivets, and fasteners.” Further more, prosecutors alleged, “that Boeing charged for the materials even though those costs were included in the company’s contract with the government.”

It appears that, if the allegations of double billing are true, by allowing Boeing to settle out of court, the U.S. Attorney General’s office has rescued the company once again from the logical consequences of their actions. Criminal charges, which if they’d been found guilty in court, would have caused an official record of criminal wrong-doing and the probability, if not requirement, of punitive removal of the company’s eligibility to bid on and be awarded lucrative government defense contracts for a set period of time, or possibly indefinitely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


The following was a response to an apparently detailed letter of concern regarding the outrageous treatment of whistleblowers, and lack of legal protection for whistleblowers in this country and asked for his help in passing improved legislation. The response was clearly fogging. -GFS

August 14, 2007
Dear ************,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding Whistleblower Protection. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
A whistleblower is anyone who makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing. This is an important process that ensures that employees are protected when they raise allegations of wrongdoing in the workplace. Some famous whistleblowers include Sherron Watkins, who exposed Enron's corporate financial scandals, Joseph Darby who alerted the U.S. military of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib and Colleen Rowley who exposed the failure of the Federal Bureau of Investigations to act on information regarding Zacarias Moussaoui , who was later convicted of conspiring to kill Americans in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
In 1989, the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) was passed and signed into law. However, the WPA has continuously been challenged and therefore weakened through numerous rulings by the U.S. Courts of Appeals. This process has virtually taken away all whistleblower protection. During the 109 th Congress, Representative Todd Platts (R-PA) introduced legislation to strengthen protections for federal employees. H.R. 1317, the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, would protect any federal employee who discloses any evidence of waste, abuse, or gross mismanagement in the government. Currently no legislation has been introduced in the 110 th Congress regarding whistleblower protection. Should legislation be introduced, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.
In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002, included provisions that would protect corporate whistleblowers from acts of discrimination, as a result of whistleblowing. This legislation was signed into public law on July 30, 2002.
I appreciate hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any other concerns or questions. I encourage you to contact me via my website at http://www.house.gov/reichert/ to expedite your thoughts and I apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,

David G. Reichert
Member of Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------Congressman Reichert’s Response to Defense Contract Corruption 9-14-07
I have sent numerous letters to all of my elected representatives, including Congressman Dave Reichert, regarding the continuing (and growing) problem with corruption within Defense Contracting, Defense contractors, such as The Boeing Company, the “Tanker Deal,” the more recent GAO decisions regarding the “Helicopter Deal” with the USAF, etc. (This information is posted previously on this site.)
My letters have all stated concerns for the corruption, no bid aspects, etc. and have asked for my elected officials to stand up and clean up the mess and my contention that business should be done in an ethical manner both by defense contractors, all government agencies and the Pentagon.
This is the response I got back 9-14-07 from Congressman Reichert, which makes it seem that they note the topic, but not the view and what they are being asked to do. I feel like he counted my letter as one supporting the current status quo, which to say the least, is NOT what I stated!
I am disgusted with what has been going on in the Boeing Company and others. I am further disgusted with the apparent lack of ethical and responsible government oversight of defense and other contracting. I asked Rep. Reichert to challenge Boeing and their corrupt counterparts within our government, not to continue to give them contracts at any cost, but to clean their act up and make them deal ethically and honestly with the government and the American people.
To date, I have not received any kind of response from Senator Patti Murray or Senator Maria Cantwell or any of the others I wrote to about this matter.


Response from Congressman David Reichert on September 14, 2007
“Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the Air Force tanker selection process. It was good to hear from you and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
The United States Air Force is currently looking to purchase a new line of refueling tankers. They have come up with a list of 26 requirements that must be met by companies such as Boeing in order to receive a contract.
In 2004, the House Armed Services Committee voted unanimously to require the Air Force to enter into a multi-year contract for new tankers. The current line of tankers includes planes that are 40 years old, some of which are corroding and the Air Force now has an urgent need to replace these planes. The Department of Defense is currently considering all options for this contract to ensure that they get the best planes for the taxpayers' dollars. I believe that Boeing is the company that can provide the Air Force with the best possible planes for the taxpayers' money, and I am hopeful that Congress will work to continue a strong relationship with Boeing. Boeing has a proven track record of providing high-quality refueling tankers for the US Air Force.
Please know that I will continue to support Boeing and jobs in the Pacific Northwest. Boeing's Everett plant provides hundreds of jobs for Washington families. The impact that this contract could have on the economy of our region and the lives of thousands of Washingtonians is very significant. Please know that I will continue to fight on behalf of Washington families by advocating that this contract be awarded to Boeing.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch with me. Your interest and input are valued and I hope to hear from you in the future regarding other matters of importance. I encourage you to visit my website and sign up for my weekly e-newsletter at http://www.house.gov/reichert/ to learn more about other issues impacting the 8th Congressional District and our nation.”

Sincerely,

David G. Reichert
Member of Congress

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From 8/17/07

Dear *************,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding Whistleblower Protection. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
A whistleblower is anyone who makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing. This is an important process that ensures that employees are protected when they raise allegations of wrongdoing in the workplace. Some famous whistleblowers include Sherron Watkins, who exposed Enron's corporate financial scandals, Joseph Darby who alerted the U.S. military of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib and Colleen Rowley who exposed the failure of the Federal Bureau of Investigations to act on information regarding Zacarias Moussaoui , who was later convicted of conspiring to kill Americans in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
In 1989, the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) was passed and signed into law. However, the WPA has continuously been challenged and therefore weakened through numerous rulings by the U.S. Courts of Appeals. This process has virtually taken away all whistleblower protection. During the 109 th Congress, Representative Todd Platts (R-PA) introduced legislation to strengthen protections for federal employees. H.R. 1317, the Federal Employee Protection of Disclosures Act, would protect any federal employee who discloses any evidence of waste, abuse, or gross mismanagement in the government. Currently no legislation has been introduced in the 110 th Congress regarding whistleblower protection. Should legislation be introduced, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.
In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002, included provisions that would protect corporate whistleblowers from acts of discrimination, as a result of whistleblowing. This legislation was signed into public law on July 30, 2002.
I appreciate hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any other concerns or questions. I encourage you to contact me via my website at http://www.house.gov/reichert/ to expedite your thoughts and I apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,

David G. Reichert
Member of Congress

So, what really is important? Honesty, Affiliation, Power, Wealth, Marital Fidelity, Lying?
I heard someone on the radio talking about the recent outing of John Edwards alleged affair and heard the host adamantly saying that the point was not the infidelity, but the lie. (Sound familiar?)

But is it? Reflect back on all the lies. Look over even this site and see how many instances of corruption and fraud, and lying have occurred, sometimes outed by whistleblowers, sometimes found by reporters or others. Lies, cover-ups based on fraud, theft, manipulation of situations generally to satisfy the greed of someone or a group of someone’s, perhaps even a company, seem to be the norm now days. Why? Some of it I'm sure is political positioning and strategy. I envision Karl Rove's long lists of things he's got on nearly everyone. Juicy little factoids ready to be used to sway or if that fails, destroy the opposition to his employers and long time conspirators. Usually this thought waves through as I am again wondering why Congress won't stand up and do something about all of this crap and corruption, because with the neutering and corrupting of the Justice Dept. and the intentional perverting of not only the interpretation of our Constitution by the Executive Branch and their associates, but the strong armed control of nearly every government agency by Presidentially appointed socially and politically prejudiced directors at the top, Congress, as dysfunctional as it is, and as fraught with corrupted people as it may be, is at this time kind of the last stop.

It seems to me that the rest of our government has given up and has crawled into the kitchen cupboard whimpering, waiting for the smoke from the destruction to bring an end to its suffering. And while all of this is going on the fear mongering aimed at the public also goes on, and the destruction of quality of people's lives in every possible way continues.

So, in the interest of finding a path through all of the stuff that is coming out, is one kind of lie worse than another? Should someone be drawn and quartered who lied about marital fidelity, but someone who lied about whether information or required testimony was about national security, or someone who lied about information used to back up certain kind of political or legal actions be allowed to continue with impunity? This seems to be something all of us, the public need to clarify for ourselves. Justice is supposed to be blind, but fair and be applied with integrity.
I post this here for your consideration. Think about the issue, of character, not restricted specifically these particular players. Perhaps you can contribute other examples of note. What can be done about all of this? It seems like the citizens really do need to play a large role in stopping the flood. Influence and lead how you can. -GFS

********************************************************************

From NPR via Huffington Press
Cindy McCain's Half Sister 'Angry' She's Hidden
by Ted Robbins
Listen Now [4 min 16 sec] add to playlist


Enlarge

Ted Robbins/NPR
Kathleen Hensley Portalski displays newspaper clippings of her father in World War II, as well as snapshots of herself as a child with her father.




Enlarge

Courtesy Nicholas Portalski
Portalski is shown with her late father, Jim Hensley, who also was Cindy McCain's father.



Read the original profile on Cindy McCain.




Enlarge

Ted Robbins/NPR
Nicholas Portalski, whose mother is McCain's half sister, says it's "very, very hurtful" that he and his mother haven't been recognized.


All Things Considered, August 18, 2008 · Last Tuesday, NPR broadcast a story about Cindy McCain's business and charity work. In it, Ted Robbins described McCain as the only child of Jim Hensley, a wealthy Arizona businessman. The next morning, NPR received an e-mail from Nicholas Portalski of Phoenix, who heard the story with his mother.
"We were listening to the piece about Cindy McCain on NPR, All Things Considered, and it just struck us very hard," Portalski said.
His mother, Kathleen Hensley Portalski, is also Hensley's daughter.
The Portalski family is accustomed to hearing Cindy McCain described as Hensley's only child.
She's been described that way by news organizations from The New Yorker and The New York Times to Newsweek and ABC.
McCain herself routinely uses the phrase "only child," as she did on CNN last month. "I grew up with my dad," she said then. "I'm an only child. My father was a cowboy, and he really loved me very much, but I think he wanted a son occasionally."
McCain's father was also a businessman — and twice a father.
"I'm upset," Kathleen Portalski says. "I'm angry. It makes me feel like a nonperson, kind of."
Who Is Kathleen Hensley Portalski?
Documents show Kathleen Anne Hensley was born to Jim and Mary Jeanne Hensley on Feb. 23, 1943. They had been married for six years when Kathleen was born.
Jim Hensley was a bombardier on a B-17, flying over Europe during World War II.
He was injured and sent to a facility in West Virginia to recuperate. During that time, while still married to Mary Jeanne, Hensley met another woman — Marguerite Smith. Jim divorced Mary Jeanne and married Marguerite in 1945.
Cindy Lou Hensley was born nine years later, in 1954.
She may have grown up as an only child, but so did her half sister, Kathleen, who was raised by a single parent.
Portalski says she did see her father and her half sister from time to time.
"I saw him a few times a year," she says. "I saw him at Christmas and birthdays, and he provided money for school clothes, and he called occasionally."
Jim Hensley also provided credit cards and college tuition for his grandchildren, as well as $10,000 gifts to Kathleen and her husband, Stanley Portalski. That lasted a decade, they say. By then, Jim Hensley had built Hensley and Co. into one of the largest beer distributorships in the country. He was worth tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars.
Sole Inheritor To Hensley's Estate
When Hensley died in 2000, his will named not only Portalski but also a daughter of his wife Marguerite from her earlier marriage. So, Cindy McCain may be the only product of Jim and Marguerite's marriage, but she is not the only child of either.
She was, however, the sole inheritor of his considerable estate.
Kathleen Portalski was left $10,000, and her children were left nothing. It's a fact Nicholas Portalski says his sister discovered the hard way.
"What she found in town — on the day of or the day before or the day after his funeral — was that the credit card didn't work anymore," Nick says.
The Portalskis live in a modest home in central Phoenix. Kathleen is retired, as is her husband. Nicholas Portalski is a firefighter and emergency medical technician looking for work.
They say it would have been nice if they were left some of the Hensley fortune.
They also say they are Democrats, but Nicholas Portalski says he had another reason for coming forward.
"The fact that we don't exist," he says. "The fact that we've never been recognized, and then Cindy has to put such a fine point on it by saying something that's not true. Recently, again and again. It's just very, very hurtful."
Kathleen Portalski says she'd like an acknowledgment and an apology.
NPR asked the McCain campaign — specifically, Cindy McCain — to comment or respond. Neither replied.

Related NPR Stories
· Aug. 13, 2008
Cindy McCain: Private Heiress And Philanthropist
· July 9, 2008
First Ladies Pursue Women Voters
· June 27, 2008
Candidate's Wives Put Under The Microscope
From NPR via Huffington Press

Original Profile for John McCain’s Wife:
Cindy McCain: Private Heiress And Philanthropist
by Ted Robbins
Listen Now [6 min 22 sec] add to playlist
Correction: The story said Cindy McCain's father, Jim Hensley, left his company to "his only child." In fact, Hensley was also survived by a daughter from a previous marriage, Kathleen Anne Hensley Portalski.


See A Slideshow Of Cindy McCain





Enlarge

Mary Altaffer
Cindy McCain arrives at her husband's campaign headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 2. AP




Enlarge

Timothy A. Clary
After wrapping up the GOP nomination fight, Sen. John McCain and wife Cindy McCain thank supporters in Dallas. AFP/Getty Images



Read the companion profile on Michelle Obama, the wife of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.




Enlarge

Hoang Dinh Nam
Cindy McCain meets with 11-year-old Le Thi Phuoc and her father, Le Van, in Vietnam in June. McCain helped arrange for Phuoc to get surgery in the U.S. for her cleft palate. AFP/Getty Images


All Things Considered, August 13, 2008 · As the wife of Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, Cindy McCain has a high public profile and she's often at her husband's side.
But she is also heiress to the Hensley and Co. beer distributorship in Phoenix. And when it comes to the family business, Cindy McCain resolutely refuses to comment.
"I don't think I'm very mysterious," she said on ABC's Good Morning America. "I'm not the candidate. I've never been front and center. I do the things I enjoy and that are important to me. And [I] do them in the way I like to do them."
Hensley and its board's chairman, Cindy McCain, declined to participate in this story. The company, which distributes brands including Bud Light and Budweiser, has a 60 percent share of the Phoenix market and had $370 million in revenues last year.
McCain's father, Jim Hensley, founded the beer business in 1955. He built it into the third-largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship in the country. When he died in 2000, he left it to his only child.
The Private Prenuptial
Cindy Hensley met John McCain more than 20 years earlier at a party in Hawaii. He was a 43-year-old naval officer, married at the time. She was 25. They married a year later — in 1980 — and they signed a prenuptial agreement, which was fairly rare at the time.
The agreement has never been made public, but tax attorney Lee Sheppard, who writes for the nonpartisan publication Tax Notes, says there could only have been one reason for the prenup: Cindy had money and John didn't.
"She was an heiress … who was marrying, and she was very young at the time," Sheppard says. McCain was "an old military guy who didn't have a job and went to work for the father-in-law right after they got married."
John McCain's job with Hensley didn't last long. In 1982, he ran for Congress, financing his campaign partially with loans from Cindy. After he won, Cindy McCain went with him to Washington, D.C. She left two years later because she was homesick for Arizona.
Separate Tax Returns For Privacy
The McCains have always filed separate tax returns. That was a problem earlier this year, when Cindy McCain refused to release her return.
"This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate," Cindy McCain told NBC's Ann Curry. "I'm not the candidate."
Eventually, she released a partial 2006 return. It lists income from salaries as just under $300,000. And it lists income from businesses, real estate holdings and trusts at $4.5 million — with no other details.
This year, McCain has benefited from holding stock in Anheuser-Busch, which is being acquired by Belgian brewer InBev. Her family also owns a stake in the Arizona Diamondbacks baseball team.
Congressional financial disclosure forms list the McCains' assets together, making John McCain the third-richest member of the Senate. But Sheppard says Congress devised the forms so they don't offer much detail, either.
"The federal financial disclosure [form] says things like, well, are you worth somewhere between $1 million and $100 million?" she says. "In her case, it doesn't tell us much, because family businesses don't have to be valued, and Hensley is a family business."
Sheppard says that despite Cindy McCain's privacy protest, businesses have interests that ought to be scrutinized.
"Let's go back in time," Sheppard says. "Lyndon Johnson was married to a very rich woman in the broadcasting business. Well, that has a little bit of political effect. And that is a business with a lot of political interests. And beer is a business with a lot of political interests, too. Beer is affected by all kinds of legal questions."
Hensley and company executives have lobbied the federal government on a number of issues, including successfully opposing rules to put alcohol content on beer labels.
When he was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, John McCain recused himself from alcohol-related issues. If he's elected president, recusal will not be an option. The campaign says McCain will deal with that if he's elected.
A Passion For Philanthropy
Cindy McCain is Hensley's chairman, and she's not involved in day-to-day operations. Those who know her say what she truly enjoys is philanthropic work.
She had her own charity providing emergency medical care to children, but it disbanded in the mid '90s after McCain admitted she illegally obtained painkillers from that charity for a back problem. Now, she is active in three charities.
As recently as this spring, she traveled to Vietnam with Operation Smile, a charity that provides surgery for children with facial deformities.
"Cindy always scrubs and goes into the operating room," says Vonnie Wray, the organization's development director. "She's very, very hands on with comforting the parents who are anxious — and perhaps shows them pictures of her own daughter."
The McCains adopted a child with a cleft palate, Bridget, who is now 16.
Through much of the 1990s, Cindy McCain stayed out of the public eye, raising four children at home. Now, as when her husband first ran for president in 2000, Cindy McCain is at his side. She supports his career — and doesn't reveal too much about her own.

Related NPR Stories
· Aug. 12, 2008
Michelle Obama: The Exec, Mom And Campaigner
· July 9, 2008
First Ladies Pursue Women Voters
· June 27, 2008
Candidate's Wives Put Under the Microscope
· June 17, 2008
Wives of McCain, Obama: Hurting or Helping?

Corruption and lack of ethics are draining this country. -GFS

******************************************************************
Link to original at Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071702760_pf.html

Bids for Work Falsified, GAO Reports
$100 Million in Contracts for Distressed Zones Go to Firms Operating Elsewhere
By Anita Huslin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 18, 2008; D04
Over the past two years, at least 10 Washington area companies have won more than $100 million in prime government contracts set aside for small businesses in economically distressed areas by claiming they had residency in those communities.
A Government Accountability Office report released yesterday challenged those claims and said the agency plans to ask the Small Business Administration's inspector general to investigate.
The GAO said it reviewed records for 17 Washington area companies participating in the program and found that 10 allegedly failed to meet SBA requirements that their primary offices be based in an economically distressed zone and that at least 35 percent of their employees live in one.
In one instance, a roofing contractor with a $4.1 million Air Force contract listed his business as being in a Landover distressed zone. When government investigators visited, the office was in half of a duplex and a person who identified himself as a vice president said no employees worked there. According to payroll records, only 12 percent of the company's employees lived in the zone, the GAO said.
In another, an engineering company listed its primary address as the second floor of a house in Northeast Washington that had been converted into a dentist's office, but its Web site locates the company in McLean and employees answer the phone there. Audrey Price, president of the company, Quantum Dynamics, said she has an open-ended arrangement with the dentist for the space above his office. Her company is planning to move soon from McLean to Macon, Ga.
"We are preparing a complete response to the SBA and expect to be exonerated as far what the GAO is saying," she said by telephone.
In another case, investigators went to the address of CSI Engineering (DC/PC) in Greenbelt and found the office locked and several days of mail piled outside the door. The company president said he has two companies with similar names; one is in Greenbelt and another in Beltsville, which is not in an economically distressed zone.
"We do all of the engineering in Greenbelt every day," said CSI Engineering president Dave Ghosal, who works in Beltsville. "There's a lot of turnover in people, but if you call, there are people there" in Greenbelt. "The names, I think, are a little confusing."
The GAO discussed its findings yesterday during a hearing before the House Committee on Small Business. The report found fault with the SBA's oversight.
As a test of the program's screening process, investigators created fictitious companies and submitted applications for the Historically Underutilized Business Zone program. Four of them won certification, even though one listed a Starbucks as its company address and the employee and company information was fabricated on all the applications, GAO investigators told committee members.
"We created the bogus companies to test fraud controls, the gateway to the money," said Gregory Kutz, managing director of forensic audits and special investigations for the GAO. "That miserably failed."
The GAO said the program relies on limited documentation and there is little follow-up by the SBA. As a result, some companies rent space in a HUB zone to win certification, but then move elsewhere, investigators said.
After the hearing, SBA officials released a statement outlining steps they will take to correct problems and said they have already moved to rectify problems such as program maps that incorrectly designate HUB zones. Bad maps have resulted in ineligible small businesses participating in the program and in eligible businesses being blocked out, the GAO report said.
SBA officials said they would work on their internal systems to improve the verification process. Last year, administration officials quashed legislation that would have required on-site visits of applicants and other measures to ensure businesses' eligibility, calling them "burdensome or undesirable."
Under federal contracting rules, agencies are to award 3 percent of their annual contracts to qualified companies in HUB zones. In 2003 to 2006, the percentage of prime contracting dollars fell about 33 percent short of the statutory goal in 2006, according to the GAO.

My Oh My! Could this be a legitimate concern that should be taken into account in the decision to award the U.S. Tanker Contract? A company’s past and present business practices and dealings perhaps should come into play when awarding huge defense contracts which concern the safety and security of the United States. -GFS

***********************************************************
From Bloomberg.com

Boeing Delay on Italy, Japan Tankers May Harm Bid for U.S. Work
By Tony Capaccio and Toko Sekiguchi
Aug. 12-- Italy will penalize Boeing Co. for being three years late in delivering the first of four aerial refueling tankers.
The company is negotiating with the Italian government over the penalty's size and composition, Cliff Hall, director of Boeing's international tanker programs, said in an interview. Boeing paid a fine to Japan last year for being one year late on delivering the first of four tankers to that nation's air force.
Performance on prior contracts is a factor in the U.S. military's contest between Boeing and Northrop Grumman Corp. for a $35 billion aerial refueling tanker contract. The Pentagon hopes to award a contract by late December.
Boeing's record on the Japanese and Italian tanker programs is ``totally relevant'' to its bid for the U.S. program, Scott Hamilton, an aviation consultant with Seattle-based Leeham Co., said. ``This goes directly to `past performance.' You don't pay penalties for good performance.''
Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group defense industry consulting firm in Fairfax, Virginia, said delays on these two programs ``have prompted Boeing to play defense against charges of `underperformance' and therefore a high risk of technical difficulties on the U.S. program.''
Boeing's December 2002 contract with Italy promised the first tanker by November 2005. Delivery now is set for November, three years late, with the second slated for delivery in December, or 21 months late. Boeing expects the third and fourth planes to be delivered at least 16 months and 12 months late, respectively.
`Italians Were Angry'
Boeing is ``working with the Italians on different options'' for the penalty it must pay that could include cash and extra services, Hall said.
``It's not really safe to say what that might be or how much. The Italians don't move fast on these types of matters,'' he said. ``I expect it to be resolved next year.''
``The Italians -- they were angry, but I think they are starting to see that we are making solid progress,'' Hall said. ``I wouldn't call it an `excellent' relationship yet. I would say we are mending fences.''
Factors contributing to the delay included design changes, expanded U.S. flight testing, greater-than-expected challenges to software integration, and the complexity of getting the plane ready for certification by the Federal Aviation Administration, Hall said.
Italian Embassy Press Counsel Fabrizio Bucci in an e-mail said, ``We understand Boeing's problems. We are, however, confident that they will be soon overcome and the delivery will take place shortly.''
Penalized by Japan
Boeing's penalty from Italy will be the second incurred on its international tanker programs.
Delivering Japan's first tanker a year late on Feb. 29 cost Boeing ``well under $5 million,'' Hall said. The fine was paid by Itochu Corp., Boeing's Japanese partner in the deal, and Boeing reimbursed Itochu, Hall said.
The second aircraft was delivered in March, two days ahead of schedule; the third will be delivered to Itochu in December about two months early and the fourth about one month ahead in November 2009, he said.
``We have certainly turned the corner on this program and are performing better,'' Hall said.

From Truthout.org
Lawsuit Filed Against Gonzales & DOJ Officials
Friday 15 August 2008
»
by: Emma Schwartz, ABC News

Alberto Gonzales and Monica Goodling. (Photo: ABC News / AP)
Lawsuit: DOJ officials should be held accountable for politicizing hiring practices.
Six attorneys rejected from civil service positions at the Justice Department filed a lawsuit on Friday against former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and three other top officials for allegedly violating their rights by taking politics into consideration in the hiring process.
The suit is an attempt to hold top officials accountable for the hiring scandal that ultimately led to Gonzales' resignation last year, said Daniel Metcalfe, the attorney for the plaintiffs who is also executive director of its Collaboration on Government Secrecy at American University's Washington College of Law.
"My clients wish that they hadn't had to bring this lawsuit -- they would have greatly preferred to be working inside the Justice Department, where by all rights they deserved to be, defending the government in court rather than standing as victimized examples of government wrongdoing," said Metcalfe, a former longtime Justice Department official.
One of the rejected attorneys -- Sean Gerlich -- first filed suit against the department in June. Today's amended complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, broadens the suit to include Gonzales; Monica Goodling, former White House Liaison; Michael Elston, former chief of staff to then-Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty; and Esther McDonald, former counsel to Gonzales.
In it, the attorneys allege that top officials violated the applicants' privacy and due process through the politicized hiring process in the Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program.
The suit alleges that in vetting candidates' political affiliations -- in part by Googling their names in connection with any political activity -- the officials violated privacy rules requiring that applicants' files maintain no additional information about the individuals' political activity. The department's failure to fully address this "reveal defendant Department of Justice's utterly unredeemable obliviousness to its legal obligations, and its remarkably recidivistic failures to meet them, in the first place," the complaint states.
The suit also argues that a wholesale shift in taking political ideology into account in hiring for the civil service positions violated the applicants' constitutional rights. "This was an extraordinary, and uniquely successful, conspiracy to achieve political results that required the gross deprivation of hundreds of individuals' constitutional rights...for which defendant Gonzales was legally most responsible," the complaint states.
Goodling's attorneys, led by John Dowd, issued a statement calling the suit a public relations ploy without merit and nothing to do with the issues Goodling was involved with. "We have no idea why the six plaintiffs in this case were not selected for the Department's extraordinarily competitive Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Programs, except that it had nothing to do with Monica Goodling—a fact that the evidence will bear out in court," they wrote.
Elston's attorney, Bob Driscoll and the Justice Department declined comment. Calls to McDonald and Gonzales' attorney were not immediately returned.
The Justice Department first came under fire last year when questions were raised about whether nine U.S. Attorneys were fired for political reasons. Further investigations revealed broader problems at the department, including how top political officials had screened out applicants for career positions who had more liberal affiliations and politics.
So far, the department's inspector general has issued two reports on the politicization at the department. They found that Goodling, Elston and McDonald violated the law in vetting candidates for career positions based on their political allegiences and affiliations.
Lawsuits seeking to hold top officials civilly liable for acts done during their tenure in government often face difficultly in court, such as the recent case seeking to hold top military officials including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accountable for the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. But if successful, the lawsuit may be the only legal consequences these officials face. Earlier this week Attorney General Michael Mukasey said the feds will not prosecute individuals involved in the Justice Department scandal.