Can The World Bank Be Turned Into A Force For Good Instead Of Evil?

Who wasn't relieved that President Obama passed on the temptation to put Wall Street-friendly hack Lawrence Summers into the presidency of the World Bank? (Aside from Summers crony Lant Pritchett.) Feels like the whole world dodged a bullet. And then this week I saw that his actual nominee, Jim Yong Kim, was running into criticism from the right for wanting to put brakes on predatory corporatism. The hubbub comes from the introduction to a book he edited in 2000, Dying For Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor. He wrote: "The studies in this book present evidence that the quest for growth in GDP and corporate profits has in fact worsened the lives of millions of women and men." And the Ayn Rand types blew their collective tops. An Op-Ed behind the Financial Times firewall came out this week that gives us an idea about what Kim hopes to accomplish as World Bank president.

My Call for an Open, Inclusive World Bank

By Dr. Jim Yong Kim
 
We live in a time of historic opportunity. Today more people live in fast-growing economies than at any time in history, and development can take root anywhere – regardless of whether a country is landlocked, just emerging from conflict or oppression, large or small. If we build on this, we can imagine a world in which billions of people in developing countries enjoy increases in their incomes and living standards. Given our collective experiences, successes and resources, it’s clear that we can eradicate global poverty and achieve in our lifetimes what for generations has been a distant dream.
 
My own life and work have led me to believe that inclusive development-- investing in human beings-- is an economic and moral imperative. I was born in South Korea when it was still recovering from war, with unpaved roads and low levels of literacy. I have seen how integration with the global economy can transform a poor country into one of the most dynamic and prosperous economies in the world. I have seen how investment in infrastructure, schools and health clinics can change lives. And I recognise that economic growth is vital to generate resources for investment in health, education and public goods.
 
Every country must follow its own path to growth, but our collective mission must be to ensure that a new generation of low and middle-income countries enjoys sustainable economic growth that generates opportunities for all citizens.
 
As co-founder of Partners in Health and director of the World Health Organisation’s initiative to treat HIV/Aids, I will bring practical experience to the World Bank. I have confronted the forces that keep more than 1bn people trapped in poverty. I have worked in villages where fewer than 1 in 10 adults could read or write, where preventable diseases cut lives short and where lack of infrastructure and capital held back entrepreneurs. In all those villages, the local people knew where improvement was needed.
 
But for change to happen, we need partnerships between governments, the private sector and civil society to build systems that can deliver sustainable, scalable solutions. And as we work for global prosperity, we must draw on ideas and experience from around the globe.
 
My message is simple: an era of extraordinary opportunity requires an extraordinary global institution. I want to hear from developing countries, as well as those that provide a big share of the resources to development, about how we can together build a more inclusive, responsive and open World Bank.
 
A more inclusive World Bank will have the resources to advance its core mission of poverty reduction. It will have a governance structure that provides legitimacy and fosters trust and confidence. The Bank has recently achieved a historic capital increase and begun an ambitious programme to modernise its operations. It has also taken important steps to increase the voting power and participation of developing countries. If I am entrusted with the responsibility of leading the World Bank, I shall ensure this continues. If the World Bank is to promote inclusive development, it must give developing nations a greater voice.
 
A more responsive World Bank must meet the challenges of the moment but also foresee those of the future. The World Bank serves all countries. My focus will be to ensure that it provides a rapid, effective response to their needs. I will come with an open mind and apply my medical and social-science training to take an evidence-based approach.
 
Finally, a more open World Bank must recognise it does not have all the answers and listen closely to its clients and stakeholders. I have led a world-renowned higher education institution and I will ensure that the World Bank provides a platform for the exchange of ideas. It is already working more closely with a diverse array of partners and it can build on these changes. The Bank has taken significant steps to become more transparent and accountable: it must continue on this path of openness.
 
Opportunity is nothing without action. In the coming weeks, I look forward to hearing the views of the World Bank’s constituents-- clients, donors, governments, citizens and civil society-- as we forge a common vision to build an even stronger institution, prepared to meet the world’s needs in the 21st century.

The president makes what looks to be one of his best appointments -- and the Senate GOP devils don't get to say word one

Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim, President Obama's surprise choice to head the World Bank, is seen here giving Conan O'Brien an honorary doctor of arts degree at last June's commencement.

"This is a huge step forward. If Kim becomes World Bank President, he'll be the first qualified president in 68 years. Kim's nomination is a victory for all the people, organizations, and governments that stood up to the Obama administration and demanded an open, merit-based process."

-- Mark Weisbrot, co-director of
the Center for Economic and Policy Research

by Ken

We have the answers to two questions, it appears. Earlier this week I wondered: "Come Friday, is Larry Summers really going to be our World Bank guy?" And in an American Prospect piece I quoted extensively, "Pick Me! Pick Me!," Robert Kuttner asked: "Why does Larry Summers have more lives than a cat?"

The answers appear to be: (1) amazingly, no; and (2) at least one fewer than he -- and the rest of us -- thought.

Today, you'll recall, was the deadline for nominations to succeed the retiring Robert Zoellick as president of the World Bank. Oh, other countries are allowed to make nominations too. They just don't count, under the standing agreement between us and the European lords of the economic universe that they get to pick the IMF head and we get to pick the World Bank head.

Actually, that's why I didn't really think Larry was going to get this job, which he seemed to want rather badly. I guess when you're goods as damaged as he is, those high-profile jobs don't come as easily as they once did. It has something to do with burning your bridges behind you -- or, increasingly, while you're still standing on them. (I'm thinking particularly of his inelegant departure from the presidency of Harvard.) And from what I've been reading, probably more important than the considerable amount of anti-Larry outcry that's been cried out domestically over the last couple of months has been the apparently unexpected blowback the White House has been receiving from those European partners, whose cooperation is required to proceed with the coronation.

Still, it's one thing to have not expected Larry S to get the nod. I assumed the president would find some other establishment stooge for it. But as usual, I may be getting ahead of the story. So let's back up. From the Washington Post:

Jim Yong Kim, Dartmouth College president, tapped by Obama to head World Bank

By Howard Schneider and Zachary Goldfarb

President Obama on Friday nominated Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim to head the World Bank, a move that would turn the organization over to a physician and development expert as opposed to the bankers, corporate leaders and political officials who have run it since its founding.

At a morning Rose Garden ceremony, Obama said Kim was the right person to lead the bank, a source of development aid and loans for both poor and developing countries, when current President Robert Zoellick leaves office in June.

"It's time for a development professional to lead the world's largest development agency," Obama said, with Kim, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton standing next to him.

Despite growing frustration from developing countries over the United States's historic hold on the nominating process, Obama's decision to choose Kim all but guarantees he will be appointed to the post by the World Bank board.

Citing Kim's global experience and work on expanding HIV treatment, the president said the Korean-born physician would further the work of an institution that was important to the health of the world economy.

"When we reduce hunger in the world, it strengthens the entire world economy," Obama said. "Ultimately when a nation goes from poverty to prosperity, it makes the world stronger and more prosperous for everyone." . . .

Kim drew quick support, and one other candidate for the job, Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs, withdrew from contention in praise of Obama's choice.

Kim "is a superb nominee," Sachs said, a "world-class development leader." Sachs had campaigned openly for the job, arguing that the bank’s next leader should be a development expert rather than someone who had spent a career in finance. . . .

Kim, Dartmouth’s leader since July 2009, is a physician by training and an anthropologist. His background is in global health, and he has worked extensively on health issues in the developing world.

Kim directed the Department of HIV/AIDS at the World Health Organization and led the agency's "3 by 5" initiative, which sought to treat three million new HIV/AIDS patients in developing countries with antiretroviral drugs by 2005. (The goal was accomplished in 2007.)

Before coming to Dartmouth, Kim held professorships at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health. He was born in Seoul, South Korea, and moved to the United States at age 5, eventually earning degrees from Brown University and Harvard.

Kim co-founded the global health organization Partners in Health. When he took the helm at Dartmouth, he became the first Asian American president of an Ivy League institution. . . .

President Kim had this to say to those of us in the "Dartmouth Community" (I may not be the most cherished of alumni, but I still get the e-mails):

March 23, 2012

To the Dartmouth Community,

I write to share the news that President Barack Obama has asked me to stand for nomination as president of the World Bank. This is one of the most critical institutions fighting poverty and providing assistance to developing countries in the world today. After much reflection, I have accepted this nomination to national and global service.

When I assumed the presidency of Dartmouth, I did so with the full and deep belief that the mission of higher education is to prepare us for lives of leadership and service in our professions and communities. While President Obama's call is compelling, the prospect of leaving Dartmouth at this stage is very difficult. Nevertheless, should the World Bank's Board of Executive Directors elect me as the next president, I will embrace the responsibility.

As Chair of the Dartmouth Board of Trustees Steve Mandel ’78 and I have discussed, if I am elected, our Board will take appropriate steps to ensure continuity of leadership and determine the timing of a search. For now, I remain president of Dartmouth. Steve and I will keep you informed of the nominating process and timing of a final decision by the World Bank next month.

Sincerely,

Jim Yong Kim
President, Dartmouth College

This is from the CEPR release that contains the enthusiastic response to the appointment of co-director Mark Weisbrot (the other CEPR co-director, you probably recall, is one of our chief go-to economists, Dean Baker):

Weisbrot noted that much of Kim's career was with Partners in Health, which Kim co-founded. "Partners in Health is a uniquely dynamic and enormously capable organization that has implemented important changes in approaches to preventing and treating diseases and other health problems, and Kim deserves much credit for that."

Weisbrot noted, "However, the Bank's process is still deeply flawed because the majority of the world's countries are not really involved and I hope that for the next presidency, they will come together long in advance to agree on a candidate."

Weisbrot noted the importance of Jeffrey Sachs’ candidacy as having busted open the process and raised the bar for whom could be nominated. Sachs’ campaigning for the Bank's presidency was unprecedented in its openness, in Sachs' platform of reform for the Bank, and in terms of Sachs' qualifications as an economist with extensive experience in economic development and as a health expert, who, like Kim, has worked to fight diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis.

"Once Sachs was nominated, it was clear it would be very difficult for the Obama administration to follow past practice and simply choose, again, a political insider or a banker," Weisbrot said.

It appears to have been Secretary of State Clinton who suggested Kim to the president for the World Bank job. And since this nomination doesn't require Senate confirmation or input of any kind, for once the president doesn't have to play his familiar (and not very successful) game of footsie with "Miss Mitch" McConnell and his pack of Senate GOP jackals. Good going, Secretary Clinton -- and you too, Mr. President.

#

Come Friday, is Larry Summers really going to be our World Bank guy?

No, the Harvard thing didn't work out great, or his stewardship of the U.S. economy as Obama's economic genius, but who's to say our Larry isn't a perfect match for the World Bank? (Most of the economically informed people I know, but you know those nutty left-wingers. Also, it seems, a number of the U.S.'s fellow old-line economic powers.)


"So why does [Larry] Summers keep falling upward, from failure to promotion?

"Three reasons. He has powerful allies and patrons, and his views on the primacy of finance are congenial to theirs. Former Goldman and Citibank executive (with pit stops in between in D.C.) Robert Rubin, Summers' partner in the financial deregulation project of the Clinton era, is the most influential of these. Summers has a capacity to persuade people of his sheer brilliance, which leads some people to excuse both his mistakes and his temperament. But most importantly, Barack Obama likes Summers, and Obama is loyal to a fault."

-- Robert Kuttner, in "Pick Me! Pick Me!," at The American Prospect

by Ken

The charming, chummy little tradition is that the European economic powers get to pick the head of the International Monetary Fund, and the U.S. of A. does the same with the World Bank. And the system has been just humming along. Think "Dominique Strauss-Kahn" in the former case, and "Paul Wolfowitz" in the latter.

In addition to which, inconvenient though it may be for the European powers in the first instance and our own selves in the second, there actually are countries -- countries with economies -- not located in either Europe or the U.S. As a matter of fact, a major part of the world's economy is now happening outside the perimeter of the Big Pickers. Strangely, the newer economic powerhouses like China, India, and Brazil are not at all fans of the "traditional" IMF-World Bank leadership situation.

I'm sure you recall that it's time to pick a new World Bank leader. Which means us. And we're counting down to a deadline. The candidate(s) are supposed to be submitted by this Friday, March 23. Meaning that President Obama is supposed to have made up his mind by then. There are two problems:

(1) President Obama seems to have made up his mind ages ago.

(2) The name he made up his mind on isn't getting an exactly joyous reception amongst our economic partners. Forget those upstarts like China, India, and Brazil. Nobody in the First World much cares what they have to say, a situation likely to obtain until they find a way to force their big brothers to pay attention. (Does anyone think that's going to be a pleasant process? Can you spell "putsch"?) We're getting strong indications that at least some of our European allies are far from thrilled at the prospect of turning the World Bank over to the best damned economic mind the U.S. economic establishment seems to know.

Is it time to share our Larry with the world? (Look out, world!)

I REALLY LIKE ROBERT KUTTNER'S TAKE ON THE
SITUATION AS SET OUT FOR THE AMERICAN PROSPECT

Pick Me! Pick Me!

After being ousted from Harvard and leaving the Obama economic team, Larry Summers has now decided he wants to be president of the World Bank.

ROBERT KUTTNER | MARCH 20, 2012

Why does Larry Summers have more lives than a cat?

He was fired as president of Harvard, did not exactly serve President Obama brilliantly as economic policy czar, and now seems to be in line for the presidency of the World Bank, a post traditionally chosen by the president of the United States.

The deadline for the selection is this Friday, March 23. The appointment is supposed to be made official at the April meeting of the World Bank.

Earlier this month, the White House leaked a short list of three names, Summers plus U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry -- neither of whom want the job. Brilliantly subtle signaling, that.

Pointedly excluded from the list was Columbia University economist and world citizen Jeff Sachs, an adviser to the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and a very serious crusader against world poverty. Sachs took the unprecedented and marvelously transparent step of nominating himself and publicly campaigning for the job, but he is a onetime rival of Summers at Harvard, a critic of administration financial policy and at the Bank he would be nobody's cat's paw.

It speaks volumes that Sachs' candidacy is not being taken seriously at the White House, though 27 members of the House have urged his appointment as have leaders of several smaller developing nations.

Nominally, the World Bank president is selected by a majority of the voting shares. The US and Europe together control a majority and invariably vote as a bloc. Ever since the World Bank and its sister institution the International Monetary Fund were founded in 1944, one has traditionally been headed by an American and the other by a European. The current head of the IMF is Christine Lagarde, former French finance minister.

Summers' appointment is all but certain, bur there are two ways that it could still come off the rails. There has been some criticism by third world nations seeking a more open process. And Summers has plenty of detractors in Europe. More generally, smaller nations have been pushing the idea that one of the big-three international economic institutions -- the Fund, the Bank and the World Trade Organization -- be headed by someone from the Third World.

But this will not happen with the Bank presidency any time soon. Perhaps when the WTO job opens up.

Small third world nations don't have the influence to demand an alternative and the larger ones -- China, India, Brazil -- do not have a rival candidate. The closest thing to serious pushback has been a guarded comment by the Mexican finance minister, Jose Antonio Meade, current chair of the G-20, asking for a more open process.

So the only practical way Summers' nomination will be blocked is if Obama has second thoughts or if some major European leader decides that he or she can't abide Summers and decides to spend serious political capital demanding an alternative.

However British Prime Minister David Cameron is happy to play his usual role of lap dog to the U.S, the French are consumed with an election that President Sarkozy is likely to lose, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has her own problems.

Summers bombed as president of Harvard. He not only offended a large segment of the faculty, but gambled recklessly with the university's endowment based on his own seat-of-the-pants theories, losing billions. At the time people said, "Thank God this man is not running the entire economy."

Then President-elect Obama chose him to run the U.S. economy. As head of the National Economic Council, where Summers was supposed to serve as an honest broker, he functioned more as martinet. On policy issues, he resisted a larger stimulus, as well as more fundamental reform of the financial system. Some latter day reports have suggested a bitter rivalry with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, but Geithner is said to be fully supportive of Summers' appointment to head the Bank.

Summers did a stint at the Bank before, as its chief economist. He was not popular among its third world clients or its staff.

So why does Summers keep falling upward, from failure to promotion?

Three reasons. He has powerful allies and patrons, and his views on the primacy of finance are congenial to theirs. Former Goldman and Citibank executive (with pit stops in between in D.C.) Robert Rubin, Summers' partner in the financial deregulation project of the Clinton era, is the most influential of these. Summers has a capacity to persuade people of his sheer brilliance, which leads some people to excuse both his mistakes and his temperament. But most importantly, Barack Obama likes Summers, and Obama is loyal to a fault.

Summers wants this job. Barring last minute doubts on Obama's part, he will get it.

Actually, in addition to the explanations Kuttner suggests for our Larry's indomitability, colleagues have been suggesting others, notably that he's a bully. A big, bad bully. And in the absence of strong, usually organized resistance, bullies tend to get their way. Especially when powerful people like what they have to say.

#

Obama Pivots Slightly Towards Fair Trade In Time For The Election

Like many progressives, we haven't been too thrilled with Obama's corporate-friendly economic agenda in general and we've been especially critical of his trade policies-- virtually the same devastating globalization trade policies pushed by the Bushes and Clinton. Economist David Korten summed them up nicely-- without even trying (or mentioning Obama)-- here in his book, Agenda For A New Economy:

The elimination of national borders as barriers to the expansion of corporate control of world markets and resources didn't happen as a result of some inexorable law of nature. It came about over a period of some thirty years through the relentless effort of Wall Street interests using every political tool at their disposal to remove legal barriers to their expansion.

Wall Street did not expend all this effort to improve the health of people and the biosphere. It figured out that its ability to generate profits would be best served by a system that maximized each locality's dependence on distant resources and markets.

Take the system by which we produce, process, transport, and market our food. A farmers' market where local producers and consumers gather to engage in direct exchange offers many benefits from a community perspective. The food is fresh, the energy costs of transport are minimal, the personal exchanges enhance community ties, farmers can adapt rapidly to changing local preferences and conditions, and the local economy is cushioned from food shocks elsewhere in the world.

Wall Street has a different perspective. It observes this scene and says in effect:

What's the profit here? We need a global food system in which producers in Chile depend on customers in New York and vice versa. Then both are dependent on us to serve as middlemen. We can monopolize global markets, set prices for both producers and consumers, and force producers either to buy our seeds, fertilizers, and insecticides at whatever price we choose or to lose their market access. The greater our success in convincing local producers that they will have greater selection at lower prices when everything is traded globally, the more they will depend on us as intermediaries, the greater will be our hold on people's lives everywhere, and the more profit we can extract.

When the world's agricultural land is organized on the model of industrialized monocropping, both producers and consumers depend on the global agricultural conglomerates for their survival. Until a crisis strikes, few notice that the resulting increase in global food interdependence increases the real costs of food production and reduces food security for everyone. This in turn creates lucrative opportunities for Wall Street speculators who profit from volatile commodity prices as a weather disruption on one side of the world creates food shortages on the other.

That said, when Obama does something right about trade, it's worth noting... and patting him on the head. This week his administration announced they had filed a request for consultations at the World Trade Organization regarding China’s export restrictions of rare earth metals, as well as tungsten and molybdenum, minerals used in a broad range of manufactured products, from auto parts and lighting to wind turbines and, ominously, advanced weapons technology. The European Union and Japan have filed suit against China as well. Then Tuesday Obama signed a bill that allows the Department of Commerce to continue to apply countervailing duties against non-market economies. Scott Paul, Executive Director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, who has been a steady critic of Obama's trade agenda, seemed very pleased with these moves.

“It’s clear that the Administration’s trade agenda is shifting to more aggressive enforcement, which is welcome news for America’s workers and businesses as they face both subsidized Chinese competition in America and restricted access to China’s marketplace.

“Over the past few years, our activists having been working hard to make sure their elected officials know just what is at stake on trade laws, surging auto parts imports from China, and China’s unfair trade practices such as rare earth mineral export restrictions. It appears that our leaders are finally beginning to listen.

“We are pleased that the Obama Administration and Congress are cracking down on China’s cheating, but there is much more work to do. Our trade deficit with China is growing, not shrinking. China has devalued the Yuan again this year. And, the subsidies Beijing is lavishing on its auto parts sector are threatening the very heart of our manufacturing recovery in America."

Now, as Dean Baker pointed out in his excellent post of why dangerous Obama crony Larry Summers is the wrong person for the World Bank presidency, it would be a mistake for progressives to sit back and support whatever Obama and his team dish out.

According to the rumor mills and betting lines, Summers is now the top contender for World Bank president. If track records mattered, Summers would be nowhere in contention.

Just looking at the economics (i.e. ignoring his stormy tenure as president of Harvard), Summers would not seem to be the sort of person who should be given another position of responsibility. In the 90s, Summers was a top advisor and eventually Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration as it rushed full speed down the road of financial deregulation. He was among the loud voices dismissing then head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Brooksley Born’s concerns about unregulated derivatives.

Summer’s was also a central figure in the engineering of the bailout from the East Asian financial crisis. This bailout sent the dollar and the trade deficit soaring. The resulting build up of reserves by developing countries created the fundamental imbalance in the U.S. and world economy, which still has not been corrected.

Summers completely bought into the Great Moderation myth that Alan Greenspan had somehow ended economic instability for all time. At the famous Greenspanfest held at Jackson Hole in 2005, Summers derided the skeptics as financial “Luddites.” ... Summers’ record as an economic adviser has provided a trail of disasters that few can match. Does it make sense to give him yet another opportunity to do even more damage?

As for Obama, this is what he had to say about the fair trade component of his usually toxic trade agenda (conventional, Republican "Free" trade):

[O]ne of the things that I talked about during the State of the Union address was making America more competitive in the global economy. The good news is that we have the best workers and the best businesses in the world. They turn out the best products. And when the playing field is level, they’ll always be able to compete and succeed against every other country on Earth. 

But the key is to make sure that the playing field is level. And frankly, sometimes it’s not. I will always try to work our differences through with other countries. We prefer dialogue. That’s especially true when it comes to key trading partners like China. We've got a constructive economic relationship with China, and whenever possible, we are committed to working with them to addressing our concerns. But when it is necessary, I will take action if our workers and our businesses are being subjected to unfair practices.
 
Since I took office, we’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration, and these actions are making a difference. For example, we halted an unfair surge in Chinese tires, which has helped put over 1,000 American workers back on the job. But we haven't stopped there. 

Two weeks ago, I created a Trade Enforcement Unit to aggressively investigate any unfair trade practices taking place anywhere in the world. And as they ramp up their efforts, our competitors should be on notice: You will not get away with skirting the rules. When we can, we will rally support from our allies. And when it makes sense to act on our own, we will. 
 
I just signed a bill to help American companies that are facing unfair foreign competition. These companies employ tens of thousands of Americans in nearly 40 states. Because of subsidies from foreign governments, some of their foreign competitors are selling products at an artificially low price. That needs to stop.

This morning, we’re taking an additional step forward.  We’re bringing a new trade case against China-- and we’re being joined by Japan and some of our European allies. This case involves something called rare earth materials, which are used by American manufacturers to make high-tech products like advanced batteries that power everything from hybrid cars to cell phones. 

We want our companies building those products right here in America. But to do that, American manufacturers need to have access to rare earth materials-- which China supplies. Now, if China would simply let the market work on its own, we’d have no objections. But their policies currently are preventing that from happening. And they go against the very rules that China agreed to follow. 
 
Being able to manufacture advanced batteries and hybrid cars in America is too important for us to stand by and do nothing. We've got to take control of our energy future, and we can’t let that energy industry take root in some other country because they were allowed to break the rules. So our administration will bring this case against China today, and we will keep working every single day to give American workers and American businesses a fair shot in the global economy. 
 
We're going to make sure that this isn’t a country that’s just known for what we consume. America needs to get back to doing what it's always done best-- a country that builds and sells products all over the world that are stamped with the proud words: "Made in America." That’s how we create good, middle-class jobs at home, and that’s how we're going to create an economy that’s built to last.

Damn, I wish we had more Democrats like David Gill in office! Take a look at his new video. Then let it sink in and see if you can see your way clear to contributing to his campaign:

For once, even the damn liberal media can't deny Wee Paulie Wolfshit the . . . er, credit he's due

The Right often complains that the liberal media fail to report good news--concerning, of course, the people/places/things about which they like to pretend there's good news to report. So let the record show that the Washington Post's Al Kamen, who didn't exactly cheerlead Paulie Wolfshit on through his trials and travails at the World Bank, reports in today's "In the Loop" column, under the head "The Writing's on the Wall":

[I]t is most emphatically not true that all [World Bank] staffers were opposed to [ousted head cheese Paul Wolfowitz]. Anyone who thinks they were should simply read the writing on the stalls: specifically, the three stalls in the women's restroom next door to the staff association headquarters and near the elevators going up to his office.

Someone this week scrawled this message in marker on three stall doors: "God Bless Mr. Wolfowitz."

Hey, Paulie Wolfshit: Here's a coupla ideas that would allow you to move on to "pursuing other opportunities," as the press release is sure to say

As I write, it appears [see below] that the World Bank, its hanging-by-a-thread boss Paulie Wolfshit, and the Bush regime are still locked in hardball negotiations to find a way to get Paulie W the hell out of his chair at the World Bank without having to accept the judgment of the internal report branding him a sleazebag for the contract shenanigans involving his girlfriend, Rosa Klebb [below].

(I know people make fun of her looks, but I think it's amazing that she doesn't seem to have aged a day since From Russia With Love was released in 1964.)

As I understand it, they're trying to find language agreeable to all parties, perhaps along the lines of "mistakes were made." Probably by Bill Clinton.

Actually, I think a little common sense will go a long way here. Off the top of my head, I can think of a solution. No, two solutions.

SOLUTION NO. 1

OK, that World Bank committee report says what it says. What makes Paulie W think anyone's ever going to read it? As long as we all promise not to say anything--and that's a small enough price to pay, isn't it, gang?--then what reason is there to think that, say, prospective future employers will ever find out about it?

Hey, it's not as if any of the other thug-fugitives from the Bush regime have had trouble finding work. After all, anyone who contemplates hiring Paulie W already knows he's a total whackjob when it comes to international affairs, with a pronounced streak of megalomania, right? Aren't there plenty of high-rolling prospective employers already looking for someone with this exact skill set?

SOLUTION NO. 2

Alternatively, we could do it vice versa--and I have to say that the elegance of this solution appeals to me greatly.

You probably noticed that Solution No. 1 depends on nobody ever mentioning Paulie W's, er, indiscreet behavior. How is he supposed to trust that absolutely everybody will stick to the bargain? Who's to say that some yokel in, I don't know, Saint Louis won't stay up late one night and catch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington on TCM and get all fired up with sappy visions of good government?

So what if we do it the other way around? Have the World Bank eat its report and just issue that press release about our Paulie pursuing other opportunities, like maybe searching out countries besides Iraq where we could do the Neocon Shock 'n' Awe Cha-Cha-Cha. Only, in this scenario, we all blab!

We all take on the obligation to tell everyone we know that Paulie W's a sleazoid, and make sure they know to pass it on.

See, it wasn't that hard, once we applied some simple sense!

SO WHAT'S THE WHOLE SHTICK WITH WOLFOWITZ?

Last time we met up with slack-jawed Neocon con artist Paul Wolfowitz he had helped manipulate the U.S. into an unjustifiable attack on Iraq. Predictably, Bush rewarded him with the presidency of the World Bank, greatly diminishing the prestige of that already tarnished organization, and angering every nation which thought someone more respectable-- and qualified-- should have that position. He's had two years to bring the Bank into total disrepute. And then a few days ago we find out that the employees of the organization hate him and publicly boo-ed him and demanded his ouster after he got some hooker he was screwing a plush job with a fat salary. The 24 Directors of the institution met in Washington today and found that Wolfowitz signed off on Shaha Riza’s promotion and salary increase-- double what was allowable-- without a review by an ethics committee or the board’s chairman.

This rubs particularly badly because Wolfowitz has been traveling around the world imperiously lecturing leaders of poor countries that he would not tolerate corruption. He has been threatening and belittling and has made enemies from India to Chad, Kenya and the Congo. Meanwhile he stealthily made sure his mistress' salary jumped from $132,000 to $193,000 annually-- tax free.

Tomorrow's NY Times claims all this is just the surface of a far worse story, the one of the rest of the world sick and tired of Bush regime arrogance, hubris and ignorance-based tyranny. "At its core, the fight about whether Mr. Wolfowitz should stay on at the bank is a debate about Mr. Bush and his tumultuous relationship with the rest of the world, particularly the bank, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which have viewed themselves-- at various moments since the invasion of Iraq in 2003-- as being at war with the Bush White House and its agenda."

Over time, Mr. Wolfowitz created an impression that at critical moments he was putting American foreign policy interests first, most notably when he suspended a program in Uzbekistan after the country denied landing rights to American military aircraft, and directed huge amounts of aid to the countries he once recruited to sign on to Washington’s counterterrorism agenda.

It did not help that he relied heavily on a pair of aides drawn from the Bush administration, Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems, who created an inner circle that the bank’s professional staff members said they had great trouble piercing.

Today's USAToday says pressure is mounting on Wolfowitz to resign before he is unceremoniously fired. He has been caught up in lying about the whole affair and has already tried the standard GOP procedure of taking fake responsibility. The bank directors don't play by GOP rules and to them taking responsibility means taking the consequences of your actions.