 |
| It's NCUA again, Sir. #!X*^!! |
Taxpayers From Payment of Contingency Fees" prohibits the use of contingency fee arrangements by Executive Branch agencies in order "to ensure the integrity and effective supervision of the legal and expert witness services provided to or on behalf of the United States."
(NCUA OIG Report - 2/6/13)
EO 13433 was issued by President George Bush on May 16, 2007 and has been continued and affirmed by the administration of President Obama. The EO was issued and has been continued because it was clear that contingency legal fee arrangements by federal government departments are damaging to the best interests of the American taxpayer and damaging to the integrity and effectiveness of the federal government.
The NCUA OIG with its usual aplomb justifies the Agency's exemption from this rule - applied to all other federal government departments - on a "walk-a-mile-in-my shoes" legal technicality and skirts the fact that other comparable agencies such as FDIC and the FHFA have chosen to abide by the EO despite any "legal niceties". Other federal agencies appear to place a higher value on the intent and principles underlying the EO - and appear to be much more fully concerned with the question of integrity.
But, here's the quote from the NCUA OIG letter to Congressman Issa that should blow the fuse of every credit union in this Country:
"Additionally, we are aware that the NCUA has also taken the position that the EO does not apply to NCUA because the agency does not receive appropriated funds for its insurance or regulatory functions. The NCUA bases its position on the apparent intent of the EO which, as its title eponymously asserts [ isn't that a cute little phrase!], is to protect American taxpayers from appropriated agencies' payment of contingency fees. (Emphasis added.) We agree with this position."
As the OIG, on behalf of its master NCUA, yet once again so clearly emphasizes, neither Congress nor the White House - Democratic nor Republican - can protect you (since you're not an American taxpayer in NCUA's opinion) from this....
(CREDIT UNIONS - HOW DO YOU LIKE BEING SECOND CLASS CITIZENS ??)
5 comments:
A forced extraction not a voluntary payment seems to be the definition of a tax. The Share Insurance transfer payment and the operating fees are clearly a tax on the membership of credit unions. One might argue that payments to the NCUSIF fund used for that purpose only may not actually be a tax.
Ncua is a "taxpayer exempt" organization.
Way too kind; NCUA is a joke.
Come on! the question is WHO oversees NCUA?? and the answer
NCUA!!!!!!
They write their laws--not Congress.
Directives from the President DO NOT APPLY.
So, what about the courts.
And I bet Issa's letter was redacted because they don't answer to Congress, but some one should try to get a copy.
What are they hiding?
NCUA continues as a "rogue" agency originally and correctly defined by Judge Jackson during the time of Damours chairmanship A bleak time for the agency. So the real question is "Why are they still around?" I would bet you would have a hard time finding another agency of government as damaged by the actions or inactions of its Management and Staff. Time for the NCUA to go away. Start carrying the message every day.
Post a Comment