Of all the shocks of the Bernie Madoff heist, perhaps none was more stunning than the list of victims. Among them were several Jewish foundations and many of our community’s most prominent nonprofits. The losses were staggering, and in some cases crippling.
Yet the real Madoff scandal isn’t the losses; it’s that our community was sitting on vast pools of accumulated wealth, much of it used to little effect. Madoff had his secrets to keep, but so, in fact, did many foundations and endowments. They had money to spend, and they didn’t spend it. Now it’s gone.
Everywhere in the Jewish community we hear of crises — in Jewish literacy and continuity, in a lack of social action and awareness, in a failure of the synagogue and the rabbinate, and so on. Yet all this time, there were individual donors and philanthropy executives sitting on large pools of money that could theoretically have been used to help address many of our biggest concerns. As a community, we now live so much for perpetuity that we fail to deal with the present.
I used to think that the rise of Jewish endowments and foundations represented the pinnacle of our life here in America — financial success, combined with organizational stability and careful foresight. Now, it appears, we are simply incompetent as a community, having so badly matched what we have with what we need. Either we refuse to deploy our assets to our needs, or our needs, as we define them, are in fact not that pressing. Either way, it is a stunning indictment.
Thanks to tax incentives that encourage their growth, philanthropic foundations have ballooned over the past decade. According to a report from New York’s Foundation Center, foundation assets doubled from $330 billion in 1997 to $669 billion only ten years later. In their 2007 monograph “A Study of Jewish Foundations,” Gary Tobin and Aryeh Weinberg note that Jewish foundations have experienced similarly rapid growth. (Full disclosure: Tobin has been a client of mine.)
Most foundations, however, do not spend the bulk of their money, instead storing it away, granting only a small portion to charities each year. “Most foundations with larger assets give away about 5%, the minimum required by federal law, which most foundations see as a ceiling, not a floor,” Tobin and Weinberg write. Similarly, endowments — which also expanded with flush economic times — “rarely withdraw more than 5 percent or 6 percent of their assets per year,” as The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported.
True, endowments have their value. James Tisch, who has previously served as president of the UJA-Federation of New York, defends them strongly. “Endowments allow institutions to survive in bad years,” he told me. “Most organizations don’t have nearly enough after their annual campaigns to make it.” I don’t disagree. There are many institutions that would close if not for their endowments, which most thankfully diversified.
But having an endowment of large enough size to do what Tisch describes is a double-edged sword. It does let you out of the annual campaign rat race. But it also removes your sense of urgency.
If Jewish donors were truly ambitious, they would demand philanthropic extinction. They would give money to organizations only if endowment funds were also put to work. They would launch foundations with a built-in ticking clock: Perform, or else. In short, they would operate as if Bernie Madoff were managing their money, and that one day it would all be gone anyway.
That model would involve more risk, more spending, more activity and certainly less for future generations. It would be akin to taking away trust funds from the grandchildren so they actually have to work for a living.
Fine. Jewish donors know that you don’t gain reward without some measure of risk. That’s true in philanthropy just as it is in business. Yet many Jewish donors still give to the same old causes, the same old institutions, in the same old ways. No wonder so many got burned by Madoff. They followed the crowd on everything.
In Judaism, every 50th year is considered a Jubilee year, when we are commanded to return land to its original owner and to let our fields lie fallow. Why not transpose that commandment to our endowments and foundations? Let us resolve: Every 50 years, our community’s stored wealth must be spent, and its charitable assets depleted. After that, we can begin the work anew — yes, with fewer assets, but with a greater capacity for creativity and success.
Noam Neusner is the principal of Neusner Communications, LLC. He served as President Bush’s principal economic and domestic policy speech writer from 2002 to 2004.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
Tapping Into Growing Lure of Hidden Jewish Heritage
Montreal's First Jewish Mayor Michael Applebaum Hit With Corruption Charges
Getting In Face of Ultra-Orthodox on Need for Real World Education
Barbra Streisand Is Butt of Anti-Semitic Joke
You've successfully signed up!
I've never seen anyone point out that side of the issue but it makes so much sense. The money is there to be used for good causes and not to sit adding up. On the other side, there are people that lost everything they had. The money they were saving was not an enormous amount, but money being saved and gaining interest for their retirement, their children, or an emergency. I read of a 90 year old man who just had to go back to work for $10 an hour because he lost his retirement savings to Madoff. I know many people have been requesting 40 days of Western Wall prayers that they should have money for the basics, because of the money they lost.
I have only one thing to say about that son of a bitch Madoff. He should be in jail for the rest of SOB life!!
This is exactly how Julius Rosenwald operated a century ago--he intended that all the money he gave be used AND show results. More to the point, he intended that all that he donated be used in his lifetime--he did not believe in perpetual endowments (why there is no Rosenwald foudation around today). But it begs the question, why does it now take a Madoff rather than a Rosenwald to show us this?
Just two weeks ago I was facing homelessness after being laid off my job. I discovered to my horror that there appear to be no Jewish charities or foundations prepared or able to provide help to American Jews in financial crisis. My tiny congregation here in Virginia is trying to help me, but they claim their resources are limited--yet they have about a million dollars in the endowment, which they won't spend on infrastructure on our building much less to help congregation members in trouble.
This is less about Madoff and more about priorities in the use of money collected in donations.
Okay, okay folks, let's not get carried away with this, sometimes saving or (investing) foundation money is beneficial. It's really simple. Budgets do not need all the money, which, (except for Madoff) should be invested to earn interest, dividends, etc. Money saved (invested) is money earned. Throwing away money is irresponsible..and frankly, not feasible.
Universities, etc., have enormous foundations...having access to the money when needed. If a hospital (Hadassah) needs a new wing ASAP, it has available resources, without having to solicit. But let's get back to Mr. Madoff. Waterboarding may not be sufficient punishment for him. I prefer, as they do in the Far East, caning. The Saudi method of beheading or hand amputation, under Sharia (Muslim law) is not in line with our Torah ("Punishment should fit the crime"), thank G-d.
The other night, I watched while Bill Maher (jokester) told a US audience that Madoff's crimes were worse than Al Qaeda, in that he hurt US more and achieved Bin Ladin's goal, to break down an already fragile US population. Fragile?
That's a little (no, I mean a lot) farfetched. But Maher's take does resonate well with the usual anti-Semitic crowd, which blames we Jews for all the world's ills, from the sub-prime mortgage problem to high corporate salaries (money hungrey greed and all that).
The Iranians say that Jews use their children for baking during Passover, and the Russians still believe in the Protocols.
Mr. Madoff hurt US, and most especially the Jews, more than he bargained for. Hopefully, he will get the correct punishment, life., no parole. I won't weep for him. He really did us a lot of damage, by reinforcing old prejudices.
My guess is that the main purpose of these endowments is to preserve the name of the donor and so they are more interested in having their contributions exist ad infinitem then on spending it rapidly to help people. This also provides career longevity for the highly paid administrators of the charitable institutions.
This is precisely why I love Chabad! They spend the money they raise on their activities. They are active and not busy planning for some unknown time in the future. They asses the situation as it is at the moment and act accordingly.
Bernie is symptomatic of the corruption of the Jewish Community beginning with Abe Foxman, who took a bribe to pardon Marc Rich and let Pollard rot. Even the Forward, a so called socialist newspaper, lost money by investing with Bernie Madoff instead of Bernie Sanders. The Jews in America are lucky that this country doesn't punish the many for the acts of the few otherwise... But guess what? After Israel engages Iran in a war that brings up the price of oil to a thousand dollars a barrel there is going to be an outbreak of anti-Semitism in this country that no one could even imagine. And law enforcement will be at the forefront just as in Chavez-land so get a legal weapon now while you still can.
I do not understand why you are so quick to generalize and paint the entire philanthropic Jewish community as a failure. You state with certainty:”Now, it appears, we are simply incompetent as a community, having so badly matched what we have with what we need. Either we refuse to deploy our assets to our needs, or our needs, as we define them, are in fact not that pressing. Either way, it is a stunning indictment.” Not all wealthy Jews were using Madoff, not all of the foundations were so careless, and not all of them have gone under or ignored their crucial role in Jewish life. Almost everyone, private people as well as foundations, have felt the fire of the major economic upheaval now taking place in the worldwide economy. You might take just a little time to write about the Jewish philanthropists, foundations and nonprofit organization hero’s who have planned well and are weathering and working hard to cope with the storm. Don’t blindly character assassinate the whole “community”. After all, Jewish philanthropy is still very much alive and many thousands of good people are still around doing their work as best they can. Give them some credit, and tell their stories.
Prof. Eliezer D. Jaffe Chairman, The Israel Free Loan Association (IFLA) Co-Chairman, The Center for the Study of Philanthropy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
It is a shame that there are huge endowments, while there are jews in need, while there are families who can not afford to provide jewish education to their children... Most of the endowments must be spent, maybe a small ammount in case of a bad year saved. It looks like endowments are used as security for administrative staffs, and not where it is needed.
Many justify endowments on the grounds that they serve as rainy day funds. Fair enough. Look out the windoow at the economy and you'll see that we are in the middle of biggest rain storm the world has suffered in the last sixty years. The number of people on the economic brink is skyrocketing while charities are forced to cut their budgets. And it's not just the economy. Much of the American Jewish community is drowning. Intermarriage rates are astronomically high while the commitment of Jews to the Jewish enterprise in America and their attachment to Israel are both down. If current trends continue, there will be fewer and fewer American Jews left to benefit from the billions stashed away in endowment funds. Now is the time for endowments to massively increase spending. Yet some endowments are taking the opposite view. They are trying to protect their principle. For example, Nancy Falchuk, Hadassah’s National President recently wrote that Hadassah has decreased its “spend rate on interest earned to better protect the principle and better serve our members and donors." Not a word about the needs of beneficiaries.
Ira Kaminow is president of Tzedakah, Inc. www.just-tzedakah.org
Many justify endowments on the grounds that they serve as rainy day funds. Fair enough. Look out the windoow at the economy and you'll see that we are in the middle of biggest rain storm the world has suffered in the last sixty years. The number of people on the economic brink is skyrocketing while charities are forced to cut their budgets. And it's not just the economy. Much of the American Jewish community is drowning. Intermarriage rates are astronomically high while the commitment of Jews to the Jewish enterprise in America and their attachment to Israel are both down. If current trends continue, there will be fewer and fewer American Jews left to benefit from the billions stashed away in endowment funds. Now is the time for endowments to massively increase spending. Yet some endowments are taking the opposite view. They are trying to protect their principle. For example, Nancy Falchuk, Hadassah’s National President recently wrote that Hadassah has decreased its “spend rate on interest earned to better protect the principle and better serve our members and donors." Not a word about the needs of beneficiaries.
Ira Kaminow is president of Tzedakah, Inc. www.just-tzedakah.org
Only people with no savings can criticize charities for having endowments.
Prudent investment of a "rainy day fund" is in assets uncorrelated with your income stream.
In other words:
If you hoard funds as insurance against a fall-off in contributions, it is negligent to invest that endowment in your contributors' businesses!
Bernie Madoff merely demonstrated that the stereotype of "the clever/shrewd Jew" is just another myth.
Will someone please explain why the American Jewish leadership will not excommunicate such evil Jews who harm the Jewish people in so terrible a way?
When five Vienna rabbis attended the Iranian Holocaust Denial Conference, the Austrian Rabbinical leadership immediately excommunicated all five.
The American Jewish Community has a right to expect our leadership to cut these terrible people out of our Community. The same goes for the so-called Kosher Butchers in Iowa and imprisoned Abramnoff - dressing like, and claiming to be an Othodox Jew.
If Jewish women are forced to ask for a "Get" from a rabbinical council in order to get a divorce, certainly our Jewish American leadership can throw such criminals as described above out of our Community - and demonstrate that we can cleanse our own house of evil-doers.
Madoff used his Jewish ties to get people to put their savings in his Ponzi scheme. Therefore, do the Jewish community not have a right to shun him and people like him?
I remember the Zion case vividly because I was a medical student when Libby died. To this day, especially among students and physicians practicing medicine in New York at the time, the case inspires intense emotions and impassioned arguments.
The exact cause of Libby’s death was never found, but many facts are known. When she was admitted to New York Hospital (now New York Presbyterian Hospital) on the evening of March 4, 1984, she was an 18-year-old college freshman with a high fever and mysterious jerking movements. She was alternately cooperative and agitated. She had a history of depression and was taking phenelzine, an antidepressant.
The physicians admitted Libby for observation and hydration, suspecting she had a viral syndrome. She was also given meperidine, an opiate drug used to stop shaking movements. The physicians who evaluated her — doctors in training known as residents — touched base with Dr. Raymond Sherman, the Zions’ family doctor and the attending physician of record, who agreed with the plan. It was about 3 a.m. on March 5.
But Libby became more agitated. When notified of this, the first-year resident who had evaluated her, Dr. Luise L. Weinstein, ordered physical restraints as well as a shot of haloperidol, another sedating medication. Busy covering dozens of other patients, Dr. Weinstein did not visually evaluate Libby again. The second-year resident on the case, Dr. Gregg Stone, had gone across the street to try to get a few hours of sleep, as was customary at the time.
The nurses later reported that Libby finally calmed down, but when her vital signs were rechecked at 6 that morning, her temperature was an alarming 107 degrees. The staff immediately tried to cool her. But she soon suffered a cardiac arrest, and despite extensive attempts at resuscitation, she could not be brought back.
After their initial grief and shock, Sidney Zion and his wife, Elsa, hired a lawyer and began to investigate Libby’s death. When Mr. Zion learned that his daughter had been tied down and not re-evaluated, that the only doctors who had seen her were in training, that such doctors routinely worked 36-hour shifts with little or no sleep, and that the attending physician had never come into the hospital, his response turned to fury.
He decided to make his daughter’s death a crusade for reform. A former lawyer and a powerful journalist who had worked for The New York Times and other newspapers, he enlisted fellow reporters across the country to tell his daughter’s story. He even persuaded the Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, to take the highly unusual step of convening a grand jury to consider murder charges against the physicians involved.
At the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, my fellow medical students and I replayed the events of that night. Would we have ordered restraints and not seen her? Would we have sent her to the intensive care unit? Would we have known about a potentially toxic interaction between the drugs in her body?
Ultimately, we concluded that “there but for the grace of God go I.” We could not definitively state that we would have done anything differently. The young doctors caring for Libby Zion had been in the wrong place at the wrong time. When I subsequently had the opportunity to research the case for a book on famous patients, I concluded that the admitting team had a good plan but had erred in not realizing that their patient’s condition was deteriorating.
The malpractice case, which went to trial in 1994, ultimately assigned equal blame to New York Hospital and Libby Zion for supposedly concealing her past use of cocaine. But the case’s real legacies were the issues of resident work hours and supervision.
This came as no surprise to those of us in the trenches. We knew what it was like to stay up for 36 hours straight, first as medical students and later as residents. It was, in a word, insanity. Deprived of sleep, we roamed the wards, dreaming of when we could finally leave, dozing off on rounds, screaming at patients and colleagues and praying we would not make any grievous mistakes. As Sidney Zion’s campaign took off, I felt sorry for the competent and well-meaning doctors he pilloried, but was thrilled that change was occurring.
The impetus for reform was the grand jury, which did not indict the physicians but rather issued a report highly critical of the hospital. This led to the formation of a state commission, headed by the New York physician Dr. Bertrand Bell, which in 1987 recommended that doctors in training work no more than 80 hours a week and no more than 24 hours in a row and receive significantly more on-site supervision from senior physicians. In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education made these recommendations mandatory for all residency training programs.
But this was not enough. This past December, the Institute of Medicine released a report recommending even stricter work-hour reductions and concluding that supervision of young physicians remained inadequate.
It had taken 25 years, but Sidney Zion’s dream had been realized — at least in part. In a recent interview, he told me he hoped that financing would be forthcoming to carry out the reforms. “I don’t know anyone who still works 24 straight hours in any other business,” he said. “And these are people with lives in their hands.”
The changes do have their critics, who say that “night float” systems, put into place to allow residents to sleep, make patient care disjointed, producing “shift worker” doctors who never truly learn how complicated illnesses evolve in the first crucial 24 to 36 hours. A 2007 study in The Archives of Internal Medicine, for example, revealed high rates of errors resulting from poor handoffs of information between physicians.
The Institute of Medicine report does not ignore these concerns and makes suggestions for improving the new systems. But thinking back to those days and nights throwing back cups of coffee to barely stay awake, I know we cannot afford to turn back. When I now work with well-rested, pleasant and enthusiastic residents, my thoughts turn to Libby Zion. Her father’s cause, at least, is alive and well
While i think that some foundations don't spend enough of their endowment (and some Universitieis raise tuition instead of doign the same) the poster here seem to forget-its not their money. People give to private foudnations to provide essentially an annuity to support certain casues. Individual charitties do the same to provide a perpetual stream of income to su[pport a professorship or program.
People who don't like this can make their own contributions.
Finally while I'm sorry one of the posters lost her job-I hardly think the c people who gav emoney to her shul expected it to be used to subsidize the expenses of an unfortunte but honest member.
The synagoge board has a duty to the membership and to the donors.
Frankly if the non-observant part of our community simply lost its guilt trip about supporting the haredi organizations (directly and indirectly) there would be more supportr for Jewish life organizations.
Some wonderful and very deep comments. I'm almost embarrassed to add my two cents.
"DUE DILIGENCE" is the standard that any officer, board member, financial officer or adviser, to a non-profit board or organization, owes to the organization in the matter of any investment of funds that organization makes. These endowments are ENTRUSTED to the officers for oversight. In most cases these officers are paid (and VERY well paid), for their oversight.
Everyone in the Jewish financial world and KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that there was something "hicky" about Maddoff and his investments. There were many red flags, some going back over ten years ago, and definitely in the past two years, that would have sidetracked anyone who wanted to invest with Madoff. Why investors continued to invest, when they should have used some "due diligence" is no secret. Madoff paid off better than any slot machine for the house. For years he paid interest at above average rates. Good years and bad years... Madoff paid off. Madoff didn't have down years, or even level years.
When other funds looked at Madoff's investing and duplicate his method, three flags popped immediately. First, his staff was too small to oversee invested funds in the monetary value that they were dealing with. Second, the accounting firm overseeing Madoff's personal company, investment of funds, and guaranteeing the incoming funds were being invested consisted of an off site, pigeon-hole office with "three" employees: a secretary, a retired CPA living out of state, and one other employee who may or may not have been a CPA. To anyone looking this is not enough manpower to oversee a $17-50 BILLION dollar fund(s). The third flag was the size of the fund compared to the number of trades a $17 billion dollar fund would have to make. The trades weren't there on either exchange. There weren't enough trades based on the size of Madoff's funds. Madoff's funds would have made him a major player and "market maker" with his positions.
So without any technical understanding of markets, and trading, short positions, long positions, puts, calls, and/or derivatives; anyone who exercised any "due diligence" could see there is something wrong. We haven't even gotten into prospectuses or annual reports or investment positions etc.,yet. It doesn't matter what was wrong or that the officers with a fiduciary responsibility knew exactly what was wrong. They had a duty to their organization to take the organizations money elsewhere.
The catch side of this was Madoff claimed to have had an investing "secret" that allowed him to pay 7-12% regularly year after year. Without a doubt there are investing strategies, but there are no "secrets." And even "secret" strategies become known over a very short time, because they require trades and public records.
The SEC KNEW about Madoff's problems nine or ten (that's 9 or 10)years ago. Yes, they absolutely failed to look into Madoff or do the function they were formed (and paid) to do. But, this does not excuse any organization of exercising due diligence before investing millions, hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars with Madoff.
Madoff had paid off like clockwork for about 20 years. This reason alone allowed officers who knew better, or should have known better, to look the other way and put their investments with Madoff. If these officers didn't know Madoff was a gamble, then they didn't exercise due diligence, and shouldn't have been in their position of responsibility. These officers chose to gamble their institutions money.
These officers weren't bamboozled, they knew and chose to look the other way. The one's who didn't know, should have known. They gambled and their institution's funds and the funds were lost on their watch. End of story.
Most of these officers who have oversight of investment funds are paid and VERY well paid to do their jobs. This is part of the shame in front of the goys and for our fellow Jews to see. Officers of non-profit organizations are being paid in the six figures and in some cases well into the six figures (or more). These officers chose to gamble with their organizations money and when the gambling doesn't pay off, they are "surprised" or "shocked" but capable of of saying, "Oh well......" and continuing to collect their fat salaries. Yes, there are some officers who are wealthy enough to work for free, but most get paid and all have staffs that are well paid.
These Jewish non-profit organizations have incestuous directors, officers, and money managers. People skip between organizations, high level jobs, and officerships not necessarily interchangeablly but like incestuously. Somehow, there is always a position (a 6 figure paying position)or a newly made "position," for certain "Jewish Leaders." Obviously, no one want's to up set the apple cart. Upset the apple cart and you'll be scrambling to fund your next job or position. In this atmosphere, officers and financial officers (advisers)chose to look the other way. The only criteria for investing with Madoff was that he paid off like clockwork year after year. That in itself is not a valid investment criteria.
Why in many cases, and definitely how much, many of our "Jewish leaders" are paid is an absolute schanda. Had any of these officers exercised any due care and ANY due diligence there wouldn't be a "Madoff problem." Again, this is not a case of these officers being bamboozled. They just didn't exercise due diligence.
Some of the smaller organizations weren't sophisticated enough to even know what "due diligence" is. They followed (relied upon) the well greased and well guided herd and unfortunately were led astray. In many cases the smaller organizations were led astray by large mainstream Jewish organizations and "Jewish leaders."
I'm not commenting on how much good or how valuable these organizations are to the Jewish community. I'm only saying I wouldn't give "Crackhead Ari" $500,000 to go to the grocery story and purchase food, and expect him to return with groceries. In fact I wouldn't really expect him to return at all.
Across the board in Jewish non-profits (well.. the ones that didn't close), I see no one taking responsibility and no officers resigning for their gross incompetence. I admit it would be hard to give up a $200,000. or $300,000. or $600,000 job. Heck!!!! Bernnie isn't even giving up his penthouse.
A perfect example and she made the decision to go public so I'm not choosing her without notice, is Hadassah's president. My insides twisted when I read Nancy Falchuk, flippantly, write of responsibility for Hadassah's Madoff's $90,000,000. loss in a single compound sentence, which began with something about a "global financial crisis." As though this "global financial crisis" was the cause of the Madoff $90 million dollar loss. PLEASE!!!!!
Hadassah's incompetence... the incompetence of Hadassah's officers caused a $90 million dollar loss, about 1/5th the total endowment.... and Ms. Falchuk has the audacity to write it off in one sentence and then use the next eight or so column inches, the remainder of her "President's Column" to beg for more money. The question of how the "new donation money" isn't going to be lost through incompetence is never addressed. You lost the last $90,000,000.00, but you won't lose the next because.........?????
Perhaps the question to be ask is why the Jewish community should be ask to give money to incompetent money managers and yet, at the same time support their lifestyle, extravagant salaries, and love of thew status quo.
Oh spare me! This is S.O.P. The lobbying for Madoff's release is as certain to come as that for traitor (U.S. traitor, Jewish hero) Jonathon Pollard. He would not have pled guilty otherwise. I am not unsympathetic to the historical plight of the Jews - Catholics were forbidden from lending money for interest payment, Jew were forbidden from owning land. But this continued abhorrent, greedy, self-centered, immoral behavior, protected by the charge of "antisemitism" against all critics, while the Jews oppress fellow Semites, is getting old. "Zionist Occupation Government" is as applicable to the U.S. regime as much as to Palestine.
Oh spare me! This is S.O.P. The lobbying for Madoff's release is as certain to come as that for traitor (U.S. traitor, Jewish hero) Jonathon Pollard. He would not have pled guilty otherwise. I am not unsympathetic to the historical plight of the Jews - Catholics were forbidden from lending money for interest payment, Jew were forbidden from owning land. But this continued abhorrent, greedy, self-centered, immoral behavior, protected by the charge of "antisemitism" against all critics, while the Jews oppress fellow Semites, is getting old. "Zionist Occupation Government" is as applicable to the U.S. regime as much as to Palestine.
Oh spare me! This is S.O.P. The lobbying for Madoff's release is as certain to come as that for traitor (U.S. traitor, Jewish hero) Jonathon Pollard. He would not have pled guilty otherwise. I am not unsympathetic to the historical plight of the Jews - Catholics were forbidden from lending money for interest payment, Jew were forbidden from owning land. But this continued abhorrent, greedy, self-centered, immoral behavior, protected by the charge of "antisemitism" against all critics, while the Jews oppress fellow Semites, is getting old. "Zionist Occupation Government" is as applicable to the U.S. regime as much as to Palestine.