Any Proof Feinberg Returned The Checks?

When Barack Obama anointed Kenneth Feinberg as the pay czar we were told that he was doing the work for free (or pro bono as they say). Yes, the guy in charge of determining pay for some private sector companies was to receive no compensation.

The only problem with that is he has a salary of over $120,000.

Contrary to press reports that he would not be compensated, uncovered Treasury Department documents reveal President Obama’s pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, received a $120,830 annual salary.

The documents were obtained by the public interest group Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act request filed July 20.

~snip~

But Judicial Watch said it obtained the Treasury Department’s June 8, 2009, welcome letter to Feinberg congratulating him for being selected “special master of executive compensation” and listing his annual salary at $120,830.

Also, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management issued a “Notification of Personnel Action” dated June 8, 2009, that established Feinberg’s salary level at $120,830. WND

After this was discovered Feinberg said that he did indeed receive a check every two weeks and that he endorsed the checks and returned them to the Treasury. And he claims he has to pay taxes on the income that he did not keep.

Is there any proof of this? I find it hard to believe that Feinberg got a check every two weeks that he signed and sent back to the Treasury because federal employees are required to have check to bank also known as automatic deposit. Unless things have changed he could not have gotten a physical check.

Therefore, he could not signed or returned one.

This is what happens when czars are appointed by Obama and skip the Senate confirmation process. We do not have full disclosure and the regime can lie about what it is doing.

So much for transparency.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “Any Proof Feinberg Returned The Checks?”

  1. FairWitness says:

    Does the Obama Administration have any serious, character-laden individuals who tell the truth and keep their word? I can’t think of even one. The entire Cabinet and staff are comprised of radical zealots or incomptent liars and cheats.

    Pay Czar …. ha!

  2. Adam says:

    “This is what happens when czars are appointed by Obama and skip the Senate confirmation process. We do not have full disclosure and the regime can lie about what it is doing.”

    Back to fear-mongering over czars huh?
    Obama has about the same number of czars doing the same types of tasks as the Bush administration and I don’t recall anybody being scared of that.

    Why would Feinberg’s position need to go through the Senate anyway? The Senate confirmation process is not designed to handle every position set by the president.

    The term “czar” is arbitrary anyway. These folks answer to Senate confirmed cabinet officials or the president himself. They are not just running around exercising unchecked power in secret.

    • Big Dog says:

      Oh but they are running around unchecked. Czar is arbitrary, right. Obama has more than Bush had and I have NEVER liked the idea of having them.

      I don’t like the term czar and I do not like these people who work in the dark.

      I notice that you did not address the pay and the lie about the pay.

    • Blake says:

      Now there’s Elizabeth Warren, a “critic” (really, she HATES Wall Street) of Wall Street, who is supposed to “help regulate” these companies- wouldn’t it make more sense to have someone who was pro-business, but wanted the business to be fair? Instead, we now have someone who will hamstring Wall Street at every opportunity. Talk about retarding the recovery.

  3. Big Dog says:

    We do not need these people. We need limited government. And Obama had about as many? He has about 7 more and Bush had too many so Obama has way too many.

    • Adam says:

      “I notice that you did not address the pay and the lie about the pay.

      I don’t have much to say about it. There is no evidence to suggest the checks were or were not cashed so it’s hard to argue about. Worst case is the Obama admin lied and this man was paid…to do his job? It’s not like the man did secret work. His appointment and duties were completely open.

      I wonder if there is a record of the Obama admin saying it was pro-bono instead of just the media reporting. I tried to find it but the buzz from the recent events have pushed over stories related to this man out of search engine results.

      What I don’t understand his how this is different than any other appointment. The record of this man’s job and pay are harder to obtain because he’s a czar that was not senate confirmed? You wouldn’t need FOIA if he were senate confirmed? I don’t get the czar angle. Maybe you can explain it better.

      “Oh but they are running around unchecked.”

      How so?

      “We do not need these people. We need limited government.”

      We’re talking about a little over 2 dozen individuals not confirmed by the Senate while 1000’s of others have been, and you’re worried they’re taking away from limited government?

      • Big Dog says:

        I am pretty sure he did not get a check. The government uses sure pay.

        • Adam says:

          You are correct in that. In fact looking through the FOIA obtained documents reveals that Feinberg was asked to fill out all documents in the New Employee Orientation package including a direct deposit form.

          But assuming we are talking about a fairly intelligent man it seems strange that he would not simply tell a lie more in line with the way he was being compensated. He is a lawyer after all. They should typically be very good at telling lies.

          I agree though that it raises a lot of interesting questions as far as his statement goes.

        • Blake says:

          Now Adam, you are “profiling”, and that is wrong- you are an attorneyphobic, and that’s wrong-
          And yes, we need very limited government- we did very well for the first hundred or so years, then progressivism slid in under the door along with other vermin, like eugenics advocates like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Charles Lindbergh, not to mention Margret Sanger.
          They have been dragging down this country for decades.