Friday, July 11, 2014

Walker spends nearly $20 Million without oversight, to offshore jobs and in some cases, in violation of HUD regulations as Chairman of WEDC. And Mary Burke is the Problem?

I'm hoping the Mary Burke campaign picks on this critical point of Scott Walker hypocrisy quickly.

Walker, who chairs the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, has lost track of millions of taxpayer dollars in loans and not surprisingly, spent million$ in violation of federal HUD laws that make Mary Burke's land purchase look tame. Remember this from September 2012 in the WSJ:
Wisconsin apparently drew HUD's attention with a February announcement by Walker that four communities had received $9.6 million in community development block grant funding ... "At the time these awards were made WEDC had no legal authority under the CDBG program to award or administer the CDBG funds. The federal agency ordered Wisconsin to hire a high-level administrator for monitoring, oversight and compliance, saying DOA currently lacks "adequate staff or experience to adequately oversee . . . the new activities that are being undertaken by the WEDC."

Officials failed to check the financial soundness of two companies receiving $1.4 million in federal grants. Questions remain about an $8.6 million chunk of CDBG funds withdrawn under unusual circumstances late last year.
So our "glass house" governor " really shouldn't "throwing stones" at Mary Burke, like in his latest Tweet below. 





Apparently the rules that apply to Burke don't apply to "fiscally irresponsible" bumblers like Scott Walker. Yet Scott Walker has spent $5.7 million in tax credits to two companies that have dumped 280 employees so they could outsource those jobs overseas. Spending they would do again and again if it meant saving just one job:
WKOW News: At least two companies that received financial awards from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) later outsourced jobs to foreign countries, with one of those companies receiving a second WEDC award after the fact.
Couldn't we also say that spending on food stamps is worth it knowing at least one family doesn't go hungry? Didn't think so.

No comments: