Lookee Here

Hmm.

President Barack Obama says he has lost confidence in the inspector general who investigates AmeriCorps and other national service programs and has told Congress he is removing him from the position.

Obama’s move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin of Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star, into the misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group that Johnson headed. . . . The IG found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used
AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.

AP, via Instapundit, via Gateway Pundit.

That doesn't sound good. IG Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney, who negotiated a settlement that retrieved over $424K from the recipient group but declined to prosecute. That, too, seems a little off -- Attorney Brown said the referral had open questions and had no audit stating the amount of misspent funds. But Attorney Brown also said the recipient group had a culture of "sloppiness", which would sort of complicate an audit, no?

Then again, IG Walpin's "office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges." So maybe the IG had an ax to grind? Which would seem odd, the story details him a New York guy, so what scores would he have to settle in Sacramento?

IG Walpin was appointed in January 2007. It wouldn't surprise me to learn there is a lot of real sloppiness, and maybe some, er, "sloppiness", in the deployment of public service grants. Programs of this sort often have vague objectives and metrics, leaving lots of discretion to local officials. I doubt they've got kids handing out campaign literature, but they can hire administrators, influence the sort of kids hired, and decide whose neighborhood gets beautified. That sort of soft patronage that helps build a coalition. It's an inevitable part of any government program, and I suspect part of the real political motivations of these things, which doesn't necessarily mean they don't still try to serve their stated purposes, and doesn't mean necessarily mean that local officials are abusing the program. But it's easier for them to focus on their particular agendas if "sloppiness" confuses oversight of their compliance with the regulations directing activity to the stated purposes. An IG who insisted on commonplace compliance could interfere with the political purposes of these programs.

That's all speculative. The case ought to be researched. Apparently the White House has to advise Congress of the reasons for dismissing an IG, clearly that ought to happen. Someone ought to look at all the internal email and documentation on the Sacramento case. Also up for review: the cases IG Walpin had in the hopper, complaints about him from other Congresspeople, his record relative to predecessors, a second look at the U.S. attorney's decision not to prosecute. GAO is the logical investigator, but they aren't exactly hard-hitting, and they can take forever. So while they're working, all the documents ought to be available via FOIA, muck to be raked by the enterprising.

IG's who bust the President's buddies build credibility for the purposes of this massive spending increase. Firing them, not so much. We won't get, or believe, a straight answer from the Administration, so let's open the books and see what others may find in them.