Pages

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal

June 27, 2012: 5:00 AM ET

Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust.

By Katherine Eban
dave voth
Dave Voth, Fast and Furious supervisor for the ATF


FORTUNE -- In the annals of impossible assignments, Dave Voth's ranked high. In 2009 the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives promoted Voth to lead Phoenix Group VII, one of seven new ATF groups along the Southwest border tasked with stopping guns from being trafficked into Mexico's vicious drug war.


Some call it the "parade of ants"; others the "river of iron." The Mexican government has estimated that 2,000 weapons are smuggled daily from the U.S. into Mexico. The ATF is hobbled in its effort to stop this flow. No federal statute outlaws firearms trafficking, so agents must build cases using a patchwork of often toothless laws. For six years, due to Beltway politics, the bureau has gone without permanent leadership, neutered in its fight for funding and authority. The National Rifle Association has so successfully opposed a comprehensive electronic database of gun sales that the ATF's congressional appropriation explicitly prohibits establishing one.

Voth, 39, was a good choice for a Sisyphean task. Strapping and sandy-haired, the former Marine is cool-headed and punctilious to a fault. In 2009 the ATF named him outstanding law-enforcement employee of the year for dismantling two violent street gangs in Minneapolis. He was the "hardest working federal agent I've come across," says John Biederman, a sergeant with the Minneapolis Police Department. But as Voth left to become the group supervisor of Phoenix Group VII, a friend warned him: "You're destined to fail."

Voth's mandate was to stop gun traffickers in Arizona, the state ranked by the gun-control advocacy group Legal Community Against Violence as having the nation's "weakest gun violence prevention laws." Just 200 miles from Mexico, which prohibits gun sales, the Phoenix area is home to 853 federally licensed firearms dealers. Billboards advertise volume discounts for multiple purchases.
Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."

By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers. Voth and his agents began investigating a group of buyers, some not even old enough to buy beer, whose members were plunking down as much as $20,000 in cash to purchase up to 20 semiautomatics at a time, and then delivering the weapons to others.


The agents faced numerous obstacles in what they dubbed the Fast and Furious case. (They named it after the street-racing movie because the suspects drag raced cars together.) Their greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers. By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.

On Dec. 14, 2010, a tragic event rewrote the narrative of the investigation. In a remote stretch of Peck Canyon, Ariz., Mexican bandits attacked an elite U.S. Border Patrol unit and killed an agent named Brian Terry. The attackers fled, leaving behind two semiautomatic rifles. A trace of the guns' serial numbers revealed that the weapons had been purchased 11 months earlier at a Phoenix-area gun store by a Fast and Furious suspect.

Ten weeks later, an ATF agent named John Dodson, whom Voth had supervised, made startling allegations on the CBS Evening News. He charged that his supervisors had intentionally allowed American firearms to be trafficked—a tactic known as "walking guns"—to Mexican drug cartels. Dodson claimed that supervisors repeatedly ordered him not to seize weapons because they wanted to track the guns into the hands of criminal ringleaders. The program showed internal e-mails from Voth, which purportedly revealed agents locked in a dispute over the deadly strategy. The guns permitted to flow to criminals, the program charged, played a role in Terry's death.

After the CBS broadcast, Fast and Furious erupted as a major scandal for the Obama administration. The story has become a fixture on Fox News and the subject of numerous reports in media outlets from CNN to the New York Times. The furor has prompted repeated congressional hearings—with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder testifying multiple times—dueling reports from congressional committees, and an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general. It has led to the resignations of the acting ATF chief, the U.S. Attorney in Arizona, and his chief criminal prosecutor.

darrell_issa
Rep. Darrell Issa (R.-Calif.)

Conservatives have pummeled the Obama administration, and especially Holder, for more than a year. "Who authorized this program that was so felony stupid that it got people killed?" Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, demanded to know in a hearing in June 2011. He has charged the Justice Department, which oversees the ATF, with having "blood on their hands." Issa and more than 100 other Republican members of Congress have demanded Holder's resignation.

The conflict has escalated dramatically in the past ten days. On June 20, in a day of political brinkmanship, Issa's committee voted along party lines, 23 to 17, to hold Holder in contempt of Congress for allegedly failing to turn over certain subpoenaed documents, which the Justice Department contended could not be released because they related to ongoing criminal investigations. The vote came hours after President Obama asserted executive privilege to block the release of the documents. Holder now faces a vote by the full House of Representatives this week on the contempt motion (though negotiations over the documents continue). Assuming a vote occurs, it will be the first against an attorney general in U.S. history.

As political pressure has mounted, ATF and Justice Department officials have reversed themselves. After initially supporting Group VII agents and denying the allegations, they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."
There's the rub.

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.

How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today. It's a story that starts with a grudge, specifically Dodson's anger at Voth. After the terrible murder of agent Terry, Dodson made complaints that were then amplified, first by right-wing bloggers, then by CBS. Rep. Issa and other politicians then seized those elements to score points against the Obama administration, which, for its part, has capitulated in an apparent effort to avoid a rhetorical battle over gun control in the run-up to the presidential election. (A Justice Department spokesperson denies this and asserts that the department is not drawing conclusions until the inspector general's report is submitted.)


"Republican senators are whipping up the country into a psychotic frenzy with these reports that are patently false," says Linda Wallace, a special agent with the Internal Revenue Service's criminal investigation unit who was assigned to the Fast and Furious team (and recently retired from the IRS). A self-described gun-rights supporter, Wallace has not been criticized by Issa's committee.

The ATF's accusers seem untroubled by evidence that the policy they have pilloried didn't actually exist. "It gets back to something basic for me," says Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). "Terry was murdered, and guns from this operation were found at his murder site." A spokesman for Issa denies that politics has played a role in the congressman's actions and says "multiple individuals across the Justice Department's component agencies share responsibility for the failure that occurred in Operation Fast and Furious." Issa's spokesman asserts that even if ATF agents followed prosecutors' directives, "the practice is nonetheless gun walking." Attorneys for Dodson declined to comment on the record.

For its part, the ATF would not answer specific questions, citing ongoing investigations. But a spokesperson for the agency provided a written statement noting that the "ATF did not exercise proper oversight, planning or judgment in executing this case. We at ATF have accepted responsibility and have taken appropriate and decisive action to insure that these errors in oversight and judgment never occur again." The statement asserted that the "ATF has clarified its firearms transfer policy to focus on interdiction or early intervention to prevent the criminal acquisition, trafficking and misuse of firearms," and it cited changes in coordination and oversight at the ATF.

Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal.

The investigation begins

The ATF is a bureau of judgment calls. Drug enforcement agents can confiscate cocaine and arrest anyone in possession of it. But ATF agents must distinguish constitutionally protected legal guns from illegal ones, with the NRA and other Second Amendment activists watching for missteps.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

Critics have depicted the ATF as "jackbooted government thugs" trampling on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. From the deadly standoff with the Branch Davidian cult in Waco, Texas, in 1993 to allegations that ATF agents illegally seized weapons from suspected straw purchasers at a Richmond  gun show in 2005, these scandals have helped cement the bureau's reputation in some quarters for law-enforcement overreach.
In part because of these notorious cases, the bureau has operated in a self-protective crouch. It has stuck to small single-defendant cases to the detriment of its effort to combat gun trafficking, the Justice Department's inspector general found in a review of ATF cases from 2007 to 2009. To refocus its efforts, the ATF established Group VII and the other Southwest border units to build big, multi-defendant conspiracy cases and target the leaders of the trafficking operations.

Of course, the ATF can be its own worst enemy. Voth arrived in Phoenix in December 2009 only to discover that his group had not been funded. The group had little equipment and no long guns, electronic devices, or binoculars, forcing Voth to scrounge for supplies.

Then there was Voth's seven-agent team, which was almost instantly at war with itself. Most of the agents were transplants, unfamiliar with Arizona or one another. Fast and Furious' lead case agent, Hope MacAllister, 41, was the exception—a tough, squared-away Phoenix veteran with little tolerance for complaints. Her unsmiling demeanor led Voth to give her the ironic nickname "Sunshine Bear." She declined to be interviewed.

Dodson, 41, arrived one day before Voth from a two-man outpost of ATF's Roanoke field office, where he'd worked since 2002. He had joined the ATF from the narcotics section of the Loudoun County sheriff's office in Virginia, where his blunt, even obnoxious manner did not earn him friends. He's "an asshole sometimes—there is no other way to put it," says his former partner, Ken Dondero, who served as best man at Dodson's wedding. "He's almost too honest. He believes that if he has a thought in his head, it's there to broadcast to everyone."

Voth, MacAllister, and a third agent, Tonya English, were quintessential by-the-book types. By contrast, Dodson and two other new arrivals, Olindo "Lee" Casa and Lawrence Alt, seemed to chafe at ATF rules and procedures. (An attorney for Casa says that "in light of the current congressional investigation, as well as investigations by the Department of Justice Inspector General and the Office of Special Counsel" it would be premature to comment. A lawyer for Alt says Alt could not be interviewed because he is in mediation to settle a suit he filed in which he charges that he was retaliated against for being a whistleblower.)


Dodson's faction grew antagonistic to Voth. They regularly fired off snide e-mails and seemed to delight in mocking Voth and his methodical nature. They were scornful of protocol, according to ATF agents. Dodson would show up to work in flip-flops. He came unprepared for operations—without safety equipment or back-up plans—and was pulled off at least one surveillance for his own safety, say two colleagues. He earned the nickname "Renegade," and soon Voth's group effectively divided into two clashing factions: the Sunshine Bears and the Renegades.

Even had they all gotten along, they faced a nearly impossible task. They were seven agents pursuing more than a dozen cases, of which Fast and Furious was just one, their efforts complicated by a lack of adequate tools. Without a real-time database of gun sales, they had to perform a laborious archaeology. Day after day, they visited local gun dealers and pored over forms called 4473s, which dealers must keep on file. These contain a buyer's personal information, a record of purchased guns and their serial numbers, and a certification that the buyer is purchasing the guns for himself. (Lying on the forms is a felony, but with weak penalties attached.) The ATF agents manually entered these serial numbers into a database of suspect guns to help them build a picture of past purchases.
By January 2010 the agents had identified 20 suspects who had paid some $350,000 in cash for more than 650 guns. According to Rep. Issa's congressional committee, Group VII had enough evidence to make arrests and close the case then.

Prosecutors: Transferring guns is legal in Arizona

This was not the view of federal prosecutors. In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime." (Arizona federal prosecutors referred requests for comment to the Justice Department, which declined to make officials available. Hurley noted in an e-mail, "I am not able to comment on what I understand to be an ongoing
investigation/prosecution. I am precluded by federal regulation, DOJ policy, the rules of professional conduct, and court order from talking with you about this matter." Cunningham's attorney also declined to comment.)

It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party,  sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal. To these prosecutors, the pattern proved little. Instead, agents needed to link specific evidence of intent to commit a crime to each gun they wanted to seize.

ATF agent John Dodson
ATF agent John Dodson

None of the ATF agents doubted that the Fast and Furious guns were being purchased to commit crimes in Mexico. But that was nearly impossible to prove to prosecutors' satisfaction. And agents could not seize guns or arrest suspects after being directed not to do so by a prosecutor. (Agents can be sued if they seize a weapon against prosecutors' advice. In this case, the agents had a particularly strong obligation to follow the prosecutors' direction given that Fast and Furious had received a special designation under the Justice Department's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. That designation meant more resources for the case, but it also provided that prosecutors take the lead role.)
In their Jan. 5 meeting, Hurley suggested another way to make a case: Voth's team could wiretap the phone of a suspected recruiter and capture proof of him directing straw purchasers to buy guns. This would establish sufficient proof to arrest both the leaders and the followers.

On Jan. 8, 2010, Voth and his supervisors drafted a briefing paper in which they explained Hurley's view that "there was minimal evidence at this time to support any type of prosecution." The paper elaborated, "Currently our strategy is to allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place, albeit at a much slower pace, in order to further the investigation and allow for the identification of additional co-conspirators."


Rep. Issa's committee has flagged this document as proof that the agents chose to walk guns. But prosecutors had determined, Voth says, that the "transfer of firearms" was legal. Agents had no choice but to keep investigating and start a wiretap as quickly as possible to gather evidence of criminal intent.

Ten days after the meeting with Hurley, a Saturday, Jaime Avila, a transient, admitted methamphetamine user, bought three WASR-10 rifles at the Lone Wolf Trading Company in Glendale, Ariz. The next day, a helpful Lone Wolf employee faxed Avila's purchase form to ATF to flag the suspicious activity. It was the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend, so the agents didn't receive the fax until Tuesday, according to a contemporaneous case report. By that time, the legally purchased guns had been gone for three days. The agents had never seen the weapons and had no chance to seize them. But they entered the serial numbers into their gun database. Two of these were later recovered at Brian Terry's murder scene.

Rebuffed by the prosecutors

Voth was a logical thinker. He lived by advice he received from an early mentor in law enforcement: "There's what you think. There's what you know. There's what you can prove. And the first two don't count."

But he was not operating in a logical world. The wiretap represented the ATF's best—perhaps only— hope of connecting the gun purchases it had been documenting to orders from the cartels, according to Hurley. In Minneapolis, the prosecutors Voth had worked with had approved wiretap applications within 24 hours. But in Phoenix, days turned into weeks, and Group VII's wiretap application languished with prosecutors in Arizona and Washington, D.C.
No one has yet explained this delay. Voth thinks prosecutor Hurley's inexperience in wiretapping cases may have slowed the process. Several other agents speculate that Arizona's gun culture may have led to indifference. Hurley is an avid gun enthusiast, according to two law-enforcement sources who worked with him. One of those sources says he saw Hurley behind the counter at a gun show, helping a friend who is a weapons dealer.

William Newell, then special agent in charge of the ATF's Phoenix field division, suspected that U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, an Obama appointee, was not being briefed adequately by deputies about the volume of guns being purchased. He wrote to colleagues in February 2010 that the prosecutor seemed "taken aback by some of the facts I informed him about"—by then, the Fast and Furious suspects had purchased 800 guns—"so I am setting up a briefing for him (alone no USAO 'posse') about this case and several other cases I feel he is being misled about."

The conflict between federal prosecutors and ATF agents had been growing for years. Pete Forcelli, who served as group supervisor of ATF's Phoenix I field division for five years, told Congress in June 2011 that he believed Arizona federal prosecutors made up excuses to decline cases. "Despite the existence [of] probable cause in many cases," he testified, "there were no indictments, no prosecutions, and criminals were allowed to walk free." Prosecutors in Los Angeles and New York were far more aggressive in pursuing gun cases, Forcelli asserted.


Phoenix-based ATF agents became so frustrated by prosecutors' intransigence that, in a highly unusual move, they began bringing big cases to the state attorney general's office instead. Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General from 2003 to 2011, says of federal prosecutors, "They demanded that every i be dotted, every t be crossed, and after a while, it got to be nonsensical."

For prosecutors, straw-purchasing cases were hard to prove and unrewarding to prosecute, with minimal penalties attached. In December 2010, five U.S. Attorneys along the Southwest border, including Burke in Arizona, wrote to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, asking that penalties for straw purchasing be increased. The commission did increase the recommended jail time by a few months. But because the straw purchasers, by definition, have no criminal record and there is no firearms-trafficking statute that would allow prosecutors to charge them with conspiracy as a group, the penalties remain low.

Prosecutors repeatedly rebuffed Voth's requests. After examining one suspect's garbage, agents learned he was on food stamps yet had plunked down more than $300,000 for 476 firearms in six months. Voth asked if the ATF could arrest him for fraudulently accepting public assistance when he was spending such huge sums. Prosecutor Hurley said no. In another instance, a young jobless suspect paid more than $10,000 for a 50-caliber tripod-mounted sniper rifle. According to Voth, Hurley told the agents they lacked proof that he hadn't bought the gun for himself.

Voth grew deeply frustrated. In August 2010, after the ATF in Texas confiscated 80 guns—63 of them purchased in Arizona by the Fast and Furious suspects— Voth got an e-mail from a colleague there: "Are you all planning to stop some of these guys any time soon? That's a lot of guns…Are you just letting these guns walk?"

Voth responded with barely suppressed rage: "Have I offended you in some way? Because I am very offended by your e-mail. Define walk? Without Probable Cause and concurrence from the USAO [U.S. Attorney's Office] it is highway robbery if we take someone's property." He then recounted the situation with the unemployed suspect who had bought the sniper rifle. "We conducted a field interview and after calling the AUSA [assistant U.S. Attorney] he said we did not have sufficient PC [probable cause] to take the firearm so our suspect drove home with said firearm in his car…any ideas on how we could not let that firearm 'walk'"?

Voth believed the wiretap could help bring the case to a swift and successful close. On March 5, 2010, ten days before their first wiretap was set to begin, Voth was in Washington, D.C., to brief ATF brass and Justice Department officials on Fast and Furious. The response was overwhelmingly positive. A senior ATF attorney wrote Voth, "This is exactly the types of cases ATF should be doing with a wire, it is fantastic."

The schism inside Phoenix Group VII

Voth returned to Phoenix fully expecting his team to unite for the work that lay ahead. But instead he found a minor mutiny—over the schedule for the wire, which needed to be monitored around the clock. Dodson didn't want to work weekends. Casa felt his seniority should exclude him from the effort.
Agents were getting pulled from other field offices to assist, and on March 11, one wrote to ask Voth, "You're not going to give the out-of-towners the crappy shifts, are you?" Voth responded, "I am attempting to split the weekends so everyone has to work one of the two days that way no one gets screwed too hard and everybody gets screwed a little bit."

The next day, March 12, Voth sent out the wire schedule at 5:15 p.m. but got such a blizzard of complaints about the shifts that, two hours later, he sent another e-mail to the group. It read in part: "[T]here may be a schism developing amongst the group. This is the time we all need to pull together not drift apart. We are all entitled to our respective (albeit different) opinions however we all need to get along and realize we have a mission to accomplish. I am thrilled and proud that our Group is the first ATF Southwest Border Group in the country to be going up on [a] wire…I will be damned if this case is going to suffer due to petty arguing, rumors or other adolescent behavior…I don't know what all the issues are but we are all adults, we are all professionals, and we have an exciting opportunity to use the biggest tool in our law enforcement tool box. If you don't think this is fun you're in the wrong line of work—period! This is the pinnacle of domestic U.S. law-enforcement techniques. After this the tool box is empty." 

The wire turned out to be short lived. Within days, the agents realized that their suspect was phasing out use of the phone they were monitoring. Group VII would have to reapply, all over again, for permission to tap the new phone number.
But Voth's so-called "schism e-mail" would live in infamy. Today it is held up as proof that the group was desperately divided over the tactic of gun walking and that Voth belittled those who opposed it. But there is no documentary evidence that agents Dodson, Casa, or Alt complained to their supervisors about the alleged gun walking, had confrontations about it, or were retaliated against because of their complaints, as they all later claimed.

Who's opposed to gun walking? 

The atmosphere inside Voth's group had become toxic. The subjects of dispute were often trivial. For example, when Voth asked Casa to turn off his computer's Godzilla sound effect, which roared each time he got an e-mail, Casa replied, "I have done some limited research and have found no ATF order or internal division memo addressing this issue."

Voth remained even-tempered but did take a stand after one incident. Alt taped to Voth's door an eight-point takedown of agent MacAllister, sarcastically stating that she was in charge of everything. Voth reported the note to an ATF attorney, and Alt apologized. It's unclear what drove the men's anger, but it seems unlikely that it was caused by disagreements over alleged gun walking.


How is it possible to deduce that? Because Dodson then proceeded to walk guns intentionally, with Casa and Alt's help. On April 13, 2010, one month after Voth wrote his schism e-mail, Dodson opened a case into a suspected gun trafficker named Isaiah Fernandez. He had gotten Casa to approve the case when Voth was on leave. Dodson had directed a cooperating straw purchaser to give three guns to Fernandez and had taped their conversations without a prosecutor's approval.
Voth first learned these details a month into the case. He demanded that Dodson meet with him and get approval from prosecutors to tape conversations. Five days later, Dodson sent an uncharacteristically diplomatic response. (He and Alt had revised repeated drafts in that time, with Alt pushing to make the reply "less abrasive." Dodson e-mailed back: "Less abrasive? I felt sick from kissing all that ass as it was.") Dodson wrote that he succeeded in posing undercover as a straw purchaser and claimed that prosecutor Hurley—who he had just belatedly contacted—had raised "new concerns." The prosecutor had told Dodson that an assistant U.S. Attorney "won't be able to approve of letting firearms 'walk' in furtherance of your investigation without first briefing the U.S. Attorney and Criminal Chief."

It was the first time Voth learned that Dodson intended to walk guns. Voth says he refused to approve the plan and instead consulted his supervisor, who asked for a proposal from Dodson in writing. Dodson then drafted one, which Voth forwarded to his supervisor, who approved it on May 28.

On June 1, Dodson used $2,500 in ATF funds to purchase six AK Draco pistols from local gun dealers, and gave these to Fernandez, who reimbursed him and gave him $700 for his efforts. Two days later, according to case records, Dodson—who would later testify that in his previous experience, "if even one [gun] got away from us, nobody went home until we found it"—left on a scheduled vacation without interdicting the guns. That day, Voth wrote to remind him that money collected as evidence needed to be vouchered within five days. Dodson e-mailed back, his sarcasm fully restored: "Do the orders define a 'day'? Is it; a calendar day? A business day or work day….? An Earth day (because a day on Venus takes 243 Earth days which would mean that I have plenty of time)?"
The guns were never recovered, the case was later closed, and Fernandez was never charged. By any definition, it was gun walking of the most egregious sort: a government agent using taxpayer money to deliver guns to bad guys and then failing to intercept them.


On Feb. 4, 2011, the Justice Department sent a letter to Sen. Grassley saying that the allegations of gun walking in Fast and Furious were false and that ATF always tried to interdict weapons. A month later, Grassley countered with what appeared to be slam-dunk proof that ATF had indeed walked guns. "[P]lease explain how the denials in the Justice Department's Feb. 4, 2011 letter to me can be squared with the evidence," Grassley wrote, attaching damning case reports that he contended "proved that ATF allowed guns to 'walk.'" The case and agent names were redacted, but the reports were not from Fast and Furious. They came entirely from Dodson's Fernandez case.

An unusual alliance

By the end of July 2010, the Fast and Furious investigation was largely complete. The agents had sent prosecutors 20 names for immediate indictment, Jaime Avila's among them. His purchase of the three WASR-10s were listed among his criminal acts. On Aug. 17, 2010, ATF agents met in Phoenix with prosecutors, including U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke. According to two people present, the ATF presented detailed evidence, including the fact that their suspects had purchased almost 2,000 guns, and pushed for indictments. A month later, on Sept. 17, an ATF team—this time including ATF director Kenneth Melson—met with prosecutors again and again pushed for action. The sides agreed to aim for indictments by October, according to one person in attendance.

But as weeks and then months passed, prosecutors did not issue indictments. The ATF agents grew increasingly concerned. By December, prosecutors had dropped Avila's name from the indictment list for what they deemed a lack of evidence.
Only when Terry, the U.S. Border Patrol agent, was murdered in December 2010 did the prosecutors act. Voth's agents arrested Avila within 24 hours of Terry's death. On Jan. 19, 2011, a federal grand jury indicted him and 19 other suspects. (Avila has since pleaded guilty to dealing guns without a license).

Meanwhile, a crucial part of the Fast and Furious scandal—an unusual alliance that would prod politicians and spread word of the failure to stop guns from making their way to Mexican drug cartels—was waiting in the wings. Little more than a week after Terry's murder, a small item about the possible connection between his death and the Fast and Furious case appeared on a website, CleanUpATF.org. The site was the work of a disgruntled ATF agent-turned-whistleblower, Vince Cefalu, who is suing the bureau for alleged mistreatment in an unrelated case. His website has served as a clearinghouse for grievances and a magnet for other ATF whistleblowers.

It had also attracted gun-rights activists loosely organized around a blog called the Sipsey Street Irregulars, run by a former militia member, Mike Vanderboegh, who has advocated armed insurrection against the U.S. government. It was an incendiary combination: the disgruntled ATF agents wanted to punish and reform the bureau; the gun-rights activists wanted to disable it. After the item about Terry appeared, the bloggers funneled the allegations through a "desert telegraph" of sorts to Republican lawmakers, who began asking questions.
A week after the initial Fast and Furious press conference in January 2011, Dodson dropped a small bombshell. He told a supervisor that he had been contacted by congressional staff. Dodson met that day with two ATF supervisors. According to their written contemporaneous accounts, Dodson was vague but claimed that Voth had always "treated him like shit" and that it "felt good" to speak with someone outside ATF.

Dodson appeared on the CBS Evening News a week later. As Voth watched the program from his living room, he says, he wanted to vomit. He saw sentences from his "schism" e-mail reproduced on the TV screen. But CBS didn't quote the portions of Voth's e-mail that described how the group was divided by "petty arguing" and "adolescent behavior." Instead, CBS claimed the schism had been caused by opposition to gun walking (such alleged opposition is not discussed anywhere in the e-mail, which is below). CBS asserted that Dodson and others had protested the tactic "over and over," and then quoted portions of Voth's e-mail in a way that left the impression that gun walking was endorsed at headquarters. CBS contacted the ATF (but not Voth directly). The result was a report that incorrectly painted Voth as zealously promoting gun walking. (A CBS spokeswoman, Sonya McNair, says CBS does not publicly discuss its editorial process but notes, "The White House has already acknowledged the truth of our report.")



The "Witch Hunt"

Less than 36 hours after the CBS report, Voth was jolted awake at dawn by the blaring of his burglar alarm. With his wife and children still in bed, he crept down the stairs of his desert home, his ATF-issued .40 caliber Sig Sauer extended before him. In the garage, he saw a door ajar and a massive kettle bell he used for workouts knocked from its place. Outside, the fleeing intruder had left behind a partial footprint in the sand.

As Voth waited for the police, he checked his e-mail and found an anonymous threat, sent minutes earlier: "You God-damned stupid 'Yes-Man' who does not have either the morals, or the intelligence, to realize that allowing this 'Fast and Furious' operation would result in unnecessary, unjustified deaths: MAY YOU EAT SHIT AND DIE." Later his wife found a strange car outside their house and an angry post on the Internet listing their home address. Voth confidentially shared his concern about that post in a meeting with two senior ATF officials, only to find an account of the meeting on the Sipsey Street blog within 24 hours.

The ATF's office of operations security investigated the threats to Voth. A confidential report on March 29, 2011, concluded, "ATF 'insiders' are the number one threat to GS Voth and his family." The report cited "at least six individuals," whom it did not name, who had "personal agendas to undermine the credibility of ATF supervisors and members of management as retribution for [Voth's] operational shortcomings." The report cited the two blogs and concluded that "the malicious intent of insiders" had led directly to Voth's becoming the target of a "nation-wide…libel campaign."


Politicians soon got involved, and the situation grew worse for the ATF. In June, Republican staffers for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee released a joint report that leaned heavily on interviews with Dodson, Casa, and Alt and identified Voth as a central figure in the scandal. It quoted Dodson describing Voth as "giddy" over the slaughter in Mexico—Voth says he was deeply upset by the violence—but didn't reflect Voth's perspective. The report was released two weeks before Voth was scheduled to be questioned for the first time by congressional investigators. (A spokesman for Issa says the committee attempted to interview Voth earlier.)

As the allegations mounted, pressure intensified. In early July the ATF's once supportive acting director, Melson—who according to e-mails had been briefed weekly on the case—went to Congress and threw his own people under the bus. Melson told Grassley that he had read the case reports only after the scandal broke, and had been "sick to his stomach," according to press accounts of the meeting. In August, Melson resigned, as did Arizona's U.S. Attorney, Burke. (Melson's lawyer, Richard Cullen, says the Justice Department's inspector general will likely answer many of the continuing questions.) In December 2011, the Justice Department retracted its Feb. 4 letter, in which it had denied walking guns in the Fast and Furious case.

For Voth, steeped in military loyalty, Melson's betrayal was the blow he couldn't fathom. Voth began losing weight, losing sleep. As he puts it, "You barely remember your own name, your mind is going 100 miles an hour." He no longer knew what to do or who could be trusted. "There would be no way," he says, "to foreshadow this."

Since the scandal erupted, almost everyone associated with Fast and Furious has been reassigned. Dodson, Casa, and Alt have been transferred to other field offices. Voth, who has now been interviewed by congressional investigators and the Justice Department's inspector general, has been reassigned to a desk job in Washington.

New facts are still coming to light—and will likely continue to do so with the Justice Department inspector general's report expected in coming months. Among the discoveries: Fast and Furious' top suspects—Sinaloa Cartel operatives and Mexican nationals who were providing the money, ordering the guns, and directing the recruitment of the straw purchasers—turned out to be FBI informants who were receiving money from the bureau. That came as news to the ATF agents in Group VII.

Today, with Attorney General Holder now squarely in the cross hairs of Congress, Democrats and Republicans are accusing each other of political machinations. Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat and ranking member of the oversight committee, has accused Issa of targeting Holder as part of an "election-year witch hunt." Issa has alleged on Fox News that Fast and Furious is part of a liberal conspiracy to restrict gun rights: "Very clearly, [the ATF] made a crisis and they are using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people's Second Amendment rights." (Issa has a personal history on this issue: In 1972, at age 19, he was arrested for having a concealed, loaded .25-caliber automatic in his car; he ultimately pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered gun.)

Issa's claim that the ATF is using the Fast and Furious scandal to limit gun rights seems, to put it charitably, far-fetched. Meanwhile, Issa and other lawmakers say they want ATF to stanch the deadly tide of guns, widely implicated in the killing of 47,000 Mexicans in the drug-war violence of the past five years. But the public bludgeoning of the ATF has had the opposite effect. From 2010, when Congress began investigating, to 2011, gun seizures by Group VII and the ATF's three other groups in Phoenix dropped by more than 90%.
Reporter Associate: Doris Burke

NBCReport: Savannah Guthrie to be Ann Curry's 'Today Show' replacement

Is Ann Curry about to be dismissed from "The Today Show"? It looks like it, and contrary to previous reports, she is not particularly interested in staying with NBC and taking a demotion to be a foreign correspondent.

According to a report from TMZ, the primary reason that Curry is still hosting the morning-show juggernaut alongside Matt Lauer is simply financial. NBC is not interested in paying her the $20 million remaining on her contract, and they are trying to negotiate some sort of buyout of Curry's contract that could also potentially allow her to return to television with another network. Based on preliminary discussions, the negotiations appear to be similar to what the network went through back in 2010 with Conan O'Brien, who was given a sizable amount of money to leave the network after "The Tonight Show" struggled in the ratings. His caveat was that he was banned from doing another talk show for six months, and he filled up that time by going on a nationwide tour and employing some of his crew.

At the moment, Savannah Guthrie is the consensus pick to succeed Curry at the co-anchor's desk. As a matter of fact, NBC already has a contract set up for her whenever they decide to pull the trigger on jettisoning their current co-host from her spot.

The plan ultimately is to have Guthrie in place with another time to prepare her for the Summer Olympics in London this August.


NBC Prepares to Replace Ann Curry on ‘Today’


Ann Curry and Matt Lauer on the "Today" show. 
Peter Kramer/NBCAnn Curry and Matt Lauer on the “Today” show.

June 20, 2012, 5:15 pm

NBC executives are making a plan to replace Ann Curry on the “Today” show, only a year after she became the co-host of the newly vulnerable morning television franchise.
The planning — which is taking place in secret and has not been completed — is effectively an admission that all is not well at “Today,” the show that invented morning television 60 years ago and inspired countless lower-rated competitors since. “Today” consistently ranked No. 1 in the morning ratings until this spring, when ABC’s “Good Morning America” beat it in the ratings for several weeks.
Even before then, some at NBC were openly criticizing the co-hosting style of Ms. Curry, 55, who succeeded Meredith Vieira last year, after spending 14 years on the show in a lesser role. Questions about her future have circled the broadcast for months, as some staff members have placed the blame for the ratings woes on Ms. Curry and others have defended her.
An Update
NBC Made Contingency Plans, but Ann Curry Reports to Work
For a couple of hours on Wednesday, NBC News officials thought the show’s co-host would not be coming into work Thursday morning.
Several weeks ago, network officials and Ms. Curry began to discuss a different job for her, according to people with knowledge of the negotiations, who insisted on anonymity because the matter was confidential. Those discussions have continued and are expected to be completed before NBC’s coverage of the Summer Olympics begins in late July.
Ms. Curry, who has not had a television agent for years, has hired a well-known lawyer, Robert B. Barnett, to represent her in the negotiations, according to these people. It is unclear whether she has explicitly agreed to any arrangement that NBC has offered her in lieu of “Today.” But several people who know Ms. Curry say that she has been struggling with the idea of leaving the show for some time.
“She got her dream job, and she doesn’t want to let it go,” one of the people said. But Ms. Curry has also expressed dissatisfaction with “Today,” where her journalistic interests sometimes clash with morning television realities. Accordingly, she may be moved into a foreign correspondent role, reflecting her strengths in reporting from disasters both political, like the ethnic killings in Darfur, and natural, like the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.
Mr. Barnett represented Christiane Amanpour last winter when she was moved off the ABC News program “This Week” and into a foreign correspondent role for the network as well as an anchor role for CNN. Ms. Amanpour’s title at ABC now is “global affairs anchor.” Mr. Barnett has also worked with a number of NBC anchors and correspondents in the past.
At NBC, information about the talks with Ms. Curry is being closely held by Jim Bell, the executive producer of “Today;” Steve Capus, the president of NBC News; and Steve Burke, the chief executive of NBCUniversal, which is controlled by Comcast. A spokeswoman for NBC News said the network declined to comment.
NBC, a network that has for two decades prided itself on smooth talent transitions — at least until its vituperative public breakup with Conan O’Brien in 2010 — has not determined who will replace Ms. Curry on “Today.” The person most often mentioned, and who most often fills in when Ms. Curry is away, is Savannah Guthrie, the co-host of the show’s 9 a.m. hour.
Ms. Vieira, who is now a special correspondent for NBC News, has also been mentioned, though she has told friends that she will not return to the “Today” show full-time. The show’s news anchor, Natalie Morales, could also step into the co-host role.
NBC executives are well aware that whoever is chosen to sit next to Mr. Lauer risks being criticized by Ms. Curry’s fans, a situation that played out 20 years ago when Jane Pauley was replaced by Deborah Norville — who in turn was soon replaced by Katie Couric.
The negotiations between NBC and Ms. Curry come at a time when “Today” is battling day by day with “G.M.A.,” the longtime runner-up in the morning TV race. “G.M.A” defeated “Today” for a week in April, ending a 16-year winning streak, and on several other weeks since; for the full season to date, though, “Today” still leads by about 400,000 viewers, and by a similar amount in the 25- to 54-year-old demographic that networks use to set ad rates.
The questions have been debated at the highest levels of NBCUniversal because “Today” is a profit center for the network, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising revenue each year.
Mr. Lauer has said that the ratings have put “Today” on notice. In early April, just before the win by “G.M.A.,” he renewed his contract at “Today,” putting to rest months of speculation about how badly the show would be damaged if he departed. Ms. Curry’s departure, similarly, could hurt “Today;” if viewers perceive that she was forced out, they may become alienated and literally turn it off as a result.
This concern, expressed repeatedly in the last six months, has slowed the process of replacing Ms. Curry, according to people at the network. But the process is now clearly under way, and executives in the television news industry believe that changes to Ms. Curry’s role on “Today” could be announced as early as next week.
The timing is delicate because in late July, NBC begins to broadcast the Summer Olympics; the “Today” show is part of the coverage, transplanting its studio to the host city.
“They feel real pressure to get it done by the Olympics,” one of the people with knowledge of the negotiations said. That way, “Today” can go to the Games with a complete, comfortable team of co-hosts. The Olympics-related shows typically get a big ratings bounce, just the sort of thing it needs to fend off “Good Morning America.”
Some at “G.M.A.” are happy to have the uncertainty about Ms. Curry linger, because they believe their show is benefiting from it. It is conventional wisdom in morning television that chemistry among hosts is a hugely important factor in viewers’ decisions about what to watch. It is also conventional wisdom that the “G.M.A.” cast now has the better chemistry.
Mr. Lauer and Ms. Curry notably lack the kind of on-camera rapport of Mr. Lauer with Ms. Vieira and, before her, with Ms. Couric. This month they’ve been apart almost as many mornings as they’ve been together; when “Today” went to London for the Queen’s Jubilee on June 4 and 5, Ms. Vieira sat in Ms. Curry’s place. In recent interviews, Mr. Lauer has described his relationship with Ms. Curry as a transition. In one, on CNN last month, he said she has “the biggest heart in broadcasting.”

Earlier Coverage of the ‘Today’ Show
‘GMA’ Appears to Nudge ‘Today’ From Top Spot After 16 Years
On Air, an Excited Matt Lauer Confirms His Plans

The Great Abdication




Among economists who know their history, the mere mention of certain years evokes shivers. For example, three years ago Christina Romer, then the head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, warned politicians not to re-enact 1937 — the year F.D.R. shifted, far too soon, from fiscal stimulus to austerity, plunging the recovering economy back into recession. Unfortunately, this advice was ignored. 


 
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Related News

But now I’m hearing more and more about an even more fateful year. Suddenly normally calm economists are talking about 1931, the year everything fell apart.
It started with a banking crisis in a small European country (Austria). Austria tried to step in with a bank rescue — but the spiraling cost of the rescue put the government’s own solvency in doubt. Austria’s troubles shouldn’t have been big enough to have large effects on the world economy, but in practice they created a panic that spread around the world. Sound familiar?
The really crucial lesson of 1931, however, was about the dangers of policy abdication. Stronger European governments could have helped Austria manage its problems. Central banks, notably the Bank of France and the Federal Reserve, could have done much more to limit the damage. But nobody with the power to contain the crisis stepped up to the plate; everyone who could and should have acted declared that it was someone else’s responsibility.
And it’s happening again, both in Europe and in America.
Consider first how European leaders have been handling the banking crisis in Spain. (Forget about Greece, which is pretty much a lost cause; Spain is where the fate of Europe will be decided.) Like Austria in 1931, Spain has troubled banks that desperately need more capital, but the Spanish government now, like Austria’s government then, faces questions about its own solvency.
So what should European leaders — who have an overwhelming interest in containing the Spanish crisis — do? It seems obvious that European creditor nations need, one way or another, to assume some of the financial risks facing Spanish banks. No, Germany won’t like it — but with the very survival of the euro at stake, a bit of financial risk should be a small consideration.
But no. Europe’s “solution” was to lend money to the Spanish government, and tell that government to bail out its own banks. It took financial markets no time at all to figure out that this solved nothing, that it just put Spain’s government more deeply in debt. And the European crisis is now deeper than ever.
Yet let’s not ridicule the Europeans, since many of our own policy makers are acting just as irresponsibly. And I’m not just talking about Congressional Republicans, who often seem as if they are deliberately trying to sabotage the economy.
Let’s talk instead about the Federal Reserve. The Fed has a so-called dual mandate: it’s supposed to seek both price stability and full employment. And last week the Fed released its latest set of economic projections, showing that it expects to fail on both parts of its mandate, with inflation below target and unemployment far above target for years to come.
This is a terrible prospect, and the Fed knows it. Ben Bernanke, the Fed’s chairman, has warned in particular about the damage being done to America by the unprecedented level of long-term unemployment.
So what does the Fed propose doing about the situation? Almost nothing. True, last week the Fed announced some actions that would supposedly boost the economy. But I think it’s fair to say that everyone at all familiar with the situation regards these actions as pathetically inadequate — the bare minimum the Fed could do to deflect accusations that it is doing nothing at all.
Why won’t the Fed act? My guess is that it’s intimidated by those Congressional Republicans, that it’s afraid to do anything that might be seen as providing political aid to President Obama, that is, anything that might help the economy. Maybe there’s some other explanation, but the fact is that the Fed, like the European Central Bank, like the U.S. Congress, like the government of Germany, has decided that avoiding economic disaster is somebody else’s responsibility.
None of this should be happening. As in 1931, Western nations have the resources they need to avoid catastrophe, and indeed to restore prosperity — and we have the added advantage of knowing much more than our great-grandparents did about how depressions happen and how to end them. But knowledge and resources do no good if those who possess them refuse to use them.
And that’s what seems to be happening. The fundamentals of the world economy aren’t, in themselves, all that scary; it’s the almost universal abdication of responsibility that fills me, and many other economists, with a growing sense of dread.


Some Comments
RT1
    Princeton, NJ

So you're saying that the banking systems (which by design don't really have much money of their own) have to be given even more money (by national governments) with few strings attached in order to avoid a worldwide financial meltdown? And seeing as governments don't technically have any money of their own they'll borrow it paying for it with taxation of their citizens. At what point are the banks taken to task and the managers held personally accountable? Talk about Ponzi schemes. I don't see much difference between Madoff and the lions of the banking industry other than these brilliant money managers manage to stay right on the bright line of the law.
It strikes me that they are not too big to fail. They are too big to succeed.

    June 25, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
  
    jb
    Brooklyn
Here's my scenario of how this could play out in the US.
Romney gets elected.
GOP does an about face with regard to attitude on Fed policies.
Dems attempt for a short time to play the same game GOP has been playing, but eventually put the welfare of country above partisan interests.
Economy improves by essentially implementing strategy Obama briefly tried to push.
Deficit/debt hawks do an about face.
GOP gets credit for turning around economy.
    June 25, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
 
    The Doctor
    Vancouver BC
I am an outsider - I do not play the Republican vs Democrat game.
Mr. Krugman, day after day we have to read how you suggest that more Government spending is the solution. But where were you when the World economic prospects looked brighter - were you on your white steed cautioning social democracies to curtail chronic overspending? If the US did not already have massive debt prior to 2008, the great recession would never have happened.
The living standard of the West has artificially been elevated for decades by Government overspending, fueled by politicians reflecting the collective greed of the voters. That is the obvious problem here. And you keep on harping about the short term symptomatic solution, when a lot of us wish to hear about the cure on the long run. And we are not necessarily Republicans or Democrats.
    June 25, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
        SP
        Singapore
    "Doctor," the Republican vs Democrat contest is not a game. It's deadly serious and it affects all of us. At this stage in U.S. politics, only completely ignorant people believe that the intellectually and morally superior pose is to stay above the fray and regard the two parties with equal disdain.
    Your identification of the global financial crisis with social democracies and government spending is a dead giveaway that you are in that completely ignorant class. The traditional social democracies in Europe that right-wingers loved to ridicule were Germany, France and the smaller Northern Europe countries. Spain, on the other hand, had a right-wing government and Ireland was pursuing fiscal policies that were applauded by the conservatives before the crisis. Guess who's doing well and who's doing badly now? The euro crisis, and also the global financial crisis were the direct result of reckless lending and leveraging by banks. What on earth did U.S. government debt have to do with it?
        June 25, 2012 at 9:19 p.m.
     
    mannypons
    Wilkes-Barre
What would you Mr. Krugman recommend to fix this crisis if you are the chairman of the FED?
    June 25, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
    dsapp
    Kentucky
Obama is part of the problem; he refuses to be part of the solution because he wants to continue his ridiculous scheme to redistribute the wealth.
    June 25, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
    Sleater
    Chicago
Round the carousel turns with the same plaints, but no discussion of what's really at stake. The rentier/asset-based class loves things as they are. They hold the power, and the money, and want more of both. Austerity is to their benefit, not the majority's. Destroying unions and the social safety net is to their benefit, not the majority's. Keep inflation low and unemployment high to depress wages and increase profits is to their benefit, because corporations are now sitting on record amounts of cash, but it's not benefitting the 99%. It isn't just about the Fed, or the GOP, or even those Democrats who collude to do nothing, or President Obama, who is terrified of angering his Wall Street backers (who've now abandoned him for the more eager puppet Mitt Romney), it's about the people who have power and wealth, and are willing to see the world pushed to the point of revolution because they are unwilling to share either. That's a morality play, but not the one we hear brayed about on the TV news day in and day out.
    June 25, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
       Robert Baesemann
    Los Angeles CA
Wait a minute, aren't we in a liquidity trap? Doesn't that mean the FED can do little or nothing to stimulate employment? The FED has committed to low for interest rates for the foreseeable future. Can it do anything more?
    June 25, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
 
    Ion Lacatus
    Romania
Regarding the paragraph:
"...Europe’s “solution” was to lend money to the Spanish government, and tell that government to bail out its own banks... and put Spain’s government more deeply in debt. "
I would rephrase that a little:
"... lend money to the Spanish government, and tell that government to bail out its own banks ... so that they can pay their debt to German banks".
For years the both Spanish and German banks made money hand over fist. For them prudence or even decency were strange words from another planet. Now the Spanish government will torture its own population to reward the bankers' greed. And the Spanish government is not the only one doing that. And we're told that doing otherwise would present a moral hazard.
Can these people even spell moral?
    June 25, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
  • caley
  • colorado
Thank You Paul.

Please, Please, Please, keep talking about this. There is no excuse for this abdication of responsibility.
  • R. Karch
  • Silver Spring, Maryland
The idea be behind doing 'stimulus' spending, also the idea of bailing out the banking industry directly, instead of loaning money to governments, either is correct in a way. But that is only because the economies need help, are in special need of cash.
However we also know Europe lacks a Federal Reserve committed to helping toward full employment as well as restraining inflation. So even more than in U.S., Europe needs some kind of stimulus.

But in the U.S., the 'quantitative easing', the buying of T Notes and issuance of cash, may perhaps be done in a better way. And that better way should take account of the fact it is not the banks that need the money. The banks are already owed money, and bailing them out costs gov't money. Why not instead bail out directly the general population, by distributing money? Reason: it does nothing to relieve debts directly, since the general population cannot be directed how to spend.
And so if not to the banks, where? The money should go to holders of capital or land, and on condition that a portion of that money goes:
1) to repay bank loans ; 2) to forgive debts from all their debtors.

And unlike with direct 'stimulus', a 'fiscal' policy, this would require no expenditures by governments. It would be printing, creating new money, and would thus be: new 'monetary' policy, and a kind of 'quantitative easing' .
It needs being implemented as a solution to the economic perils confronting nations' economies today.
  • N. Ray
  • North Carolina
No one will do anything about solving the problem because, so far, the social safety nets are saving victims from the most extreme deprivation, like starvation and widespread homelessness.
    • SP
    • Singapore
    So we should shred the safety net and allow people to starve in order to reduce starvation?
  • Neal Kluge
  • Washington DC
PK advocates borrowing from the Chinese and out great grandchildren so we may live well now.He should use his intelligence and hard work to tell us how to do well without borrowing.....
  • LVL
  • Maryland
Thank you Prof. Krugman, NY Times, and readers who comment.

I think that we need to introduce more understanding of the morality in our political and economic discussions. The new book "What money can't buy" by the author Michael J. Sandel argues that economists have largely missed the moral dimension of individual, corporate, and governmental policy choices.

The consequences are not just economic but moral too as more people lose lives and livelihoods.
  • Free Bear
  • NY
If the re-enact of 1931 is going to happen, it is because this is fate. In a democracy society like us, public get what they deserve for their collective behavior.
I hope I am wrong but it looks like that the doomsday is inevitable.
  • DannyK
  • Hong Kong
Ben Bernanke has certainly abdicated his leadership role to push for more needed stimulus. This is unfortunate especially as he is a scholar of the Great Depression and should know the lessons well. His support for earlier stimuli was important but I don't know what has made him gun shy these days.

I really hope he's not pulling back because he fears for his job. The job won't be worth a dime if he doesn't push for what he truly believes needs to be done.
  • David H. Eisenberg
  • Buchanan, Va.
Let me guess - something kind of like a one world government (OWG) run by philosopher-kings (resembling by eduation and inclination - the professor) dedicated to selflessly acting on our behalf and making sure that nothing which should fail, actually fails. They will be well versed in the official interpretation of the "Great Depression" which does not ever discuss Sec'y of the Treasury, Morgenthau's admission that they spent and spent, but it didn't work. Yes, it will be necessary to borrow your money to support the dignity of the selfless philosopher-kings' (and staffs) so they can concentrate on deciding which industries get supported and how much soda you should drink at one sitting in order that everyone gets paid back. Well, not really your money - they mean the portion of their money that is your "fair share" earned by cooperation with OWG. If you dissent, well, then you are selfish and only out for yourself. Of course, this is all only until the "financial emergency" is over (archaic English - "never"). Fortunately, the philosopher-kings will educate us so that we can understand the new meaning of words like "policy abdication," "limit the damage," "contain the crisis" or "assume some of the financial risks." Because, otherwise, they might also "sound familiar" to us.
  • greenie
  • Vermont
I'm not an economist, but to me it seems obvious that the euro was a perhaps noble, but surely misguided idea. How can all of the euro countries have different monetary policies, different financial strategies and such different ways of handling debt yet use the same currency? Oh yes, I forgot, it is quite the same here in the states. But at least here we have the federal government who will bail out individual states and their banks when necessary. And as we theoretically are united under the same flag, such bailouts are "all in the family". This is not the case in Europe.If Germany bails out Greece or Spain, they are sending money to another country;part of the EU for sure, but still not quite "family".

Iraq orders Voice of America, 43 other media outlets to close



Matt Cardy / Getty Images, file
BBC journalist Huw Edwards faces the camera as soldiers march past prior to a memorial service at Basra International Airport on April 30, 2009.


11
hours
ago


BAGHDAD - An Iraqi regulatory body has ordered the closure of 44 media outlets in the country including the BBC and Voice of America in a dispute over broadcast licenses, sources with knowledge of the order said on Sunday. However, no action was immediately taken.
Other organizations targeted for shutdown include privately-owned local TV channels Sharqiya and Baghdadia as well as U.S.-financed Radio Sawa.
A senior source at the Communications and Media Commission (CMC), the body responsible for the order, said the move had nothing to do with the way the outlets had reported on sectarian conflict in the country, as some reports have suggested.
US forces formally ended their nine-year war in Iraq with a low-key flag ceremony in Baghdad on Thursday. NBC's Richard Engel reports.
"The CMC sent such a letter warning them that they're going to shut down their services because they didn't pay (their license fees)," a senior source at the CMC told Reuters.

At least 70 killed during religious festival as bombers target Iraq pilgrims, cops

The regulator had passed its order to the Baghdad operations command, the source added, referring to the local law enforcement forces who would carry out the closures.
"This is totally wrong and unwise as it comes at a time when the country is plunged into political uncertainty," Ziyad al-Aajely, head of the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory, said.
Saddam's Iraq is gone, but in its place is a state with close ties to one of America's biggest and most unpredictable enemies: Iran. NBC's Richard Engel has been covering the war from the start, and went back for this historic week to take a closer look at the Iran connection.
"What we are confident of is that the decision was not political, but its negative implications will definitely have political implications on the government and harm the reputation of Iraq as a free country," he added.

'Guiding and financing terrorist attacks': Interpol issues alert for Iraq's vice president

In a telephone interview with The Associated Press, he called the move "a government message to the media outlets that if you are not with us, then you are against us."

'Technicalities'

The BBC said it was negotiating the renewal of its license with the Iraqi authorities.
"The delay is due to technicalities," it said in a statement. "The BBC's journalists in Baghdad are not currently experiencing any issues reporting from the country, and it is important that the BBC and other international news organizations are able to operate freely and bring independent and impartial news to audiences in Iraq and the wider region."


Saddam regime's fugitive 'king of clubs' appears in new video?

Some of the outlets on the list no longer operate bureaux in Iraq.
However, Radio Sawa, the U.S.-funded station operated by Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc., told The Associated Press that it does have a license despite being on the shutdown list.

US Embassy in Iraq facing cuts amid ongoing violence

"We were surprised to see our radio station on the list because we think that we work in accordance with all Iraqi laws," Sawa deputy director Salah Nasrawi said according to the AP. He added that "bureaucracy and the delays in the government offices might be behind this."
When the U.S. military withdraws from Iraq, thousands of Americans will remain. The United States' largest embassy is in Baghdad and there are two huge consulates in the region too.  Ambassador Jim Jeffrey compared the size of the U.S. Embassy and diplomatic efforts to when he was in Saigon in 1973. Ted Koppel reports.
Iraq's main political factions have been locked in a crisis since December, with opponents of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki accusing the Shiite leader of trying to consolidate power at their expense.
Maliki is trying to fend off attempts by Sunni, Kurd and some Shiite rivals to organize a vote of no-confidence against him.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012


Issa: No evidence White House covered up 'Fast and Furious' fallout


Rep. Darrell Issa
Rep. Darrell Issa, (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, speaks as his committee considers whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (J. Scott Applewhite / AP Photo / June 20, 2012)



WASHINGTON – House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa said Sunday that he has no evidence the White House was involved in what could be a Justice Department "cover up” to contain fallout from the botched “Fast and Furious” operation.

In a series of interviews on the political talk shows, the California Republican repeatedly accused Justice Department officials of lying to Congress about the gun-trafficking sting operation and withholding documents from congressional investigators.

But Issa acknowledged his committee has seen no evidence the White House was involved.

“And I hope that they don’t get involved,” Issa said, speaking on “Fox News Sunday.” “I hope that this stays at Justice, and I hope that Justice cooperates because, ultimately, Justice lied to the American people on Feb. 4, and they didn’t make it right for 10 months.”

Issa’s committee voted last week to hold Atty. Gen. Eric Holder in contempt, sending the matter to the full House for a vote expected this week. The move quickly escalated the standoff with the administration over documents related to the now-defunct program in which agents allowed guns to be moved across the border with the hope of tracking them to Mexican cartels. Many weapons were lost and two were found at the scene in the killing of a border agent.

Republicans in Congress contend the Justice Department has withheld documents that reveal how top officials responded to early inquiries about U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s death.

President Obama asserted executive privilege on Thursday to withhold the documents, saying they are related to internal and confidential deliberations. The White House cast Issa’s investigation as an election-year political witch hunt.

Speaking on ABC’s “This Week,” Issa called the administration’s claim of privilege “over-broad or simply wrong.” The committee is preparing a response to the administration in a letter that he said would probably be sent Sunday or Monday.

“When we get lied to, when the American people get lied to, there can’t be oversight if there’s lying,” Issa said, noting that the Supreme Court has ruled “there cannot be executive privilege over criminal cover up or cover up of crime.” He continued, “Lying to Congress is a crime. We have every right to see documents to say: Did you know, when did you know, what did you know, including even the president.”

But Issa also said it is not too late for Holder to avoid a House vote.

The chairman offered to reopen negotiations with the Justice Department if the administration would turn over to his committee documents it previously offered. The administration had been in talks with the Republican-led House committee, which for months has been investigating the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operation.

“If those documents say what Eric Holder says they say, we might in fact dismiss contempt,” Issa said. “If we get documents that do show, cast some doubt or allow us to understand this, we’ll at least delay contempt and delay the process. We only broke off negotiations when we got a flat refusal to give us information needed for our investigation.”

Refueling the Entrepreneurial Enterprise

How can business leaders encourage employee creativity while maintaining profitable growth? Great ideas are important but you also need dedicated leadership, a clear-cut strategy and well-defined objectives.


 
Seize the Innovation Initiative Seize the Innovation Initiative
Innovation means more than new products. It means thinking every day about how to reach new customers and serve them better, enhancing their experience and bringing them new value.
Read Article
 
The New Leadership Equation: What Does Leadership Mean To You? The New Leadership Equation: What Does Leadership Mean To You?
What it means to be a leader is in flux. Executives today have responsibilities that go beyond delivering results. Very often, they help showcase innovation and champion creativity. At GE Capital’s annual CFO Summit, we asked our customers about their views on leadership. See what they had to say.
Watch video
 
GE's second annual "Global Innovation Barometer" confirms business executives’ belief in innovation as the main driver of prosperity, competitiveness and job creation. It also reveals how challenging and uncertain economic and political environments may hinder companies’ ability to deliver meaningful innovation.
Read Article
 

Advancing Sustainability: From 1.0 to 3.0

Companies can establish long-lasting sustainability programs without high upfront capital costs. Some thought leaders in the field help point the way forward.


 
GE's ecomagination Treasure Hunt Checklist GE's ecomagination Treasure Hunt Checklist
GE shares its process for analyzing resource usage and identifying ways to cut costs that have resulted in $130 million in savings for the company. Implementing sustainable practices may save your company money too.
Read Article
 
Financial Times: Positives start to outstrip negatives Financial Times: Positives start to outstrip negatives
Alternative fuel vehicles are finally entering company fleets. See why GE has pledged to buy 25,000 electric vehicles for its own fleet and for those of its customers by 2015.
Read Article
 
Electric Vehicles: The Future Is Now Electric Vehicles: The Future Is Now
There's now a compelling business case for adopting electric vehicles. Here are things to consider if your company is thinking of switching to an alternative fuel fleet.
Read Article
 
Energy Expert Talks Electric Car Future Energy Expert Talks Electric Car Future
Deb Frodl, chief strategy officer at GE Capital, Fleet Services, explains the benefits of electric vehicles on FOX affiliate KMSP-TV.
Watch video
 
  • INDUSTRY RESEARCH

Screen reader users: Please switch to forms mode for this link.
Feedback

Pessimistic vs. Optimistic

 
CFO Outlook Survey
Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) are in a unique position to evaluate their companies’ current performance and future outlook. Among the CFO surveys published in the U.S., the GE Capital U.S. Mid-Market CFO Survey is one of the few that examines businesses across distinct sectors, providing a more comprehensive picture of how financial executives view the world today and their outlook for the months ahead.
About this data
In the first and third quarters of 2010 and 2011, GE Capital surveyed the CFOs of more than 530 U.S. middle-market companies across seven distinct industries to ascertain their views of the U.S. economy and their outlook on a variety of crucial industry and business issues, including commercial credit and financing needs. CFOs surveyed were from an independent Dun & Bradstreet source of middle-market companies with revenue between $50 million and $1 billion, and average revenue of approximately $150 million. For more information on the study, click here.
Highlights from 2012 CFO Outlook Spring update





Confidence Springs Forward

2012 CFO Outlook Spring Update






CFOs warm on growth.  Senior financial executives have a considerably warmer view on corporate performance and the U.S. economy than they did just a few months ago—with 93% of CFOs now forecasting growth in 2012.
Rising revenue, employment and prices.  64% of CFOs expect their revenues to rise, half project greater profits and 51% anticipate more hiring in 2012. 57% of companies will be raising prices on their products and services.
Oil prices and government fuel concern.  In terms of economic impact, CFOs are most concerned about oil prices (65%) and the effectiveness of government leaders (63%). Energy costs (51%) and healthcare costs (51%) are the leading corporate financial concerns.
 Key CFO Perspectives
Is sustainable growth ahead?  Whether renewed CFO optimism signals a temporary spring thaw or a blossoming upward trend depends on several factors, from rising oil prices and looming legislative rulings to the fall elections.  For more details and analysis, view the online report.
About the CFO Outlook Webcast series  Driven by the insights and opinions of financial executives, the CFO Outlook series offers a regular gauge of the health of the U.S. and world economies, and discussion of topics that drive successful business operations.