Showing posts with label pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pelosi. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Congess' outrageous insider trading

Corporate executives, members of the executive branch and all federal judges are subject to strict conflict of interest rules. But not the people who write the laws.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323527/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/07/news/congress_insider_trading/index.htm?section=money_topstories

"60 Minutes" had a recent report exposing the egregious insider trading conducted by members of Congress that is technically not illegal for them, but would put normal people in the slammer. Sensing that the gig is up and anticipating public outcry, the Senate is now resuscitating 2004's STOCK Act: a failed bill to explicitly ban insider trading by Congress, and require more frequent public disclosure of lawmakers' trading activities. In order to look ethical leading up to an election year, the bill has currently attracted 171 co-signers (possibly a record), whereas it couldn't get an ounce of support during its original drafting. Some critics say that the bill is unnecessary because regular trading laws already apply to Congress, and they are not "insider" employees of the companies whose securities they trade. But of course neither was Martha Stewart.

As an example, take September 2008. Lehman was about to go under, and the whole system was on the edge. Paulson and Bernanke called a select group of lawmakers for ultra-secret meetings to break the bad news and plan responses. Maybe it was just a coincidence, but one of the attendees, the ranking GOP on the House Fin. Svcs. Cmte., AL's Spencer Bachus, suddenly bought a massive amount of options that would pay out if the market tanked. Bachus was one of our elected officials who was supposed to avert the crisis, yet he had a clear financial incentive to let the market plummet. WTF?

Maybe another coincidence, but current House Speaker Boehner was trading in health insurance stocks during the health reform debate. Shortly before Washington decided to kill the public option proposal, Boehner bought shares of private insurance companies when everyone else was bearish on them. And of course with the news of the public option's demise, insurer's stock prices rose and he made money.

We already know that most legislators leave DC much richer than when they arrived (and it's not because of their generous salaries). They make decisions with millions or billions at stake, so of course private interests attempt to sway their opinions with bribes. It's not as bad as Nigeria or Iraq, but it happens here plenty. On top of that they need to play the markets too? Aren't they too busy running the country and serving their constituents to trade on the side? Most of us don't even have 5 min a day to watch the tickers, but trading is much easier when you are way ahead of the information curve. It's ridiculous, they are beyond shame.

Take this other example involving IPOs:

If you were a senator... and I gave you $10,000 cash, one or both of us is probably gonna go to jail. But if I'm a corporate executive and you're a senator, and I give you IPO shares in stock and over the course of one day that stock nets you $100,000, that's completely legal.

Look at Pelosi's reaction to questions about her profiting from the 2008 Visa IPO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0LMAP0L5G4

She claims to fight the big banks and help ordinary Americans, yet she accepted shares in Visa while helping to kill CC reform legislation back then that could have saved Americans billions during this horrible recession. The specific reform was eventually signed into law in 2010, but banks got 2 precious years to restructure their revenue models in anticipation of this change. So clearly it's not just a GOP problem.

I would go further than the STOCK Act: Congressmen can't trade in any equity, real estate, or international securities while in office, AND one year thereafter. Maybe bar their immediate families too. They get the pension anyway, why the need for more cap. gains? They can park their money in a 1% CD or money market account like the rest of us saps. They are public servants after all, and servants sacrifice, they don't get rich. How bad would it look if a US soldier in Iraq was in charge of protecting a BP facility, but one night insurgents blow it up? Then later his superiors find out that he was shorting BP stock a week before the incident. As far as I know, FDA employees aren't allowed to trade in stocks of the companies they're auditing, and I think employees at the Fed and Treasury have to sell all their financial stock before taking the job too. It's common sense, so why is Congress somehow exempt? Are they saints? I would also copy China and EXECUTE public officials convicted of corruption, fraud, etc. I'm against capital punishment except for this. I know China's policy hasn't fully stopped the problem, but at least it sends a message that people can't just profit with impunity and make a mockery of the law/public office. But this is America, the country that pardoned Tricky Dick. So tired of this crap.  

From "60 Minutes":
But what baffles Baird even more is that the situation has gotten worse. In the past few years a whole new totally unregulated, $100 million dollar industry has grown up in Washington called political intelligence. It employs former congressmen and former staffers to scour the halls of the Capitol gathering valuable non-public information then selling it to hedge funds and traders on Wall Street who can trade on it.

Baird says its taken what would be a criminal enterprise anyplace else in the country and turned it into a profitable business model.
Baird: The town is all about people saying-- what do you know that I don't know. This is the currency of Washington, D.C. And it's that kind of informational currency that translates into real currency. Maybe it's over drinks maybe somebody picks up a phone. And says you know just to let you know it's in the bill. Trades happen. Can't trace 'em. If you can trace 'em, it's not illegal. It's a pretty great system. You feel like an idiot to not take advantage of it.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Health bill narrowly passes House


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120220977

"The House bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats."

I called in a favor to my cousin there! You can thank me later, Obama. Well I guess Cao was in a tough spot, getting fluke elected in a mostly Dem district just because the FBI found blocks of cash in his opponent's freezer. He voted yes to hopefully get re-elected (doubtful) by his liberal constituents, but pissed off the GOP in the process. So even if he does get another term, no one will want to work with him (as if anyone wants to work with a guy named Cao to begin with).

The bill narrowly passed the House, which has a much bigger Dem majority than the Senate. So if 39/258 Dems opposed the bill (15%), and the same percentage holds in the Senate, then they can't get the 60 votes needed (even with Snowe). Lieberman said that he feels "morally obligated" to filibuster any bill with a public option in it. So I guess anything that passes the Senate probably won't have a public option.

And Blue Dog Dems even had to inject a sneaky abortion proposal into the House bill for it to pass. These conservative Dems (they should just register Republicans and stop trying to have it both ways) are so worried about their re-election if they endorse the health bill, that they supported an amendment essentially making the ban on federal assistance for abortions permanent. And Pelosi caved. Apparently the ban is currently yearly and needs to be renewed (but it always is), stemming back from Clinton times when he needed a big bill passed and the GOP stuck that provision in there, so he had no choice but accept it to move his bigger policy priorities forward.

Of course it's not like DC is handing out free abortions all the time to piss off Jesus, but that's what conservatives fear I guess. They think that federal subsidies to help the poor afford health insurance will allow them to get abortions covered by their health plans (and currently many health plans do cover abortions), so I guess in a convoluted way that could be seen as gov't assisted abortion. But abortion rights groups worry that with this ban in place, that will encourage private insurers to drop coverage of abortion, because why should they when their gov't-subsidized competitors aren't? So I guess abortions will still be legal, but you will pay out of pocket (assuming the bill passes in current form).

And it's not like Obama would veto this huge bill (and the main mission of his presidency) over a polarizing issue like abortion.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Congress earns its sub-20% approval rating

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_go_co/congress_spending_10

From the AP:
The legislation came together in a remarkably secret process that concentrated decision-making power in the hands of a few lawmakers. They include House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi.
Republicans blasted the process by which the measure came before the House. Lawmakers had just a few hours to scrutinize the 357-page measure — along with 752 pages of accompanying explanations and tables of previously secret pet projects — before the vote. Debate lasted less than one hour.
The rush also ran counter to Democratic promises for more open disclosure of billions of dollars worth of home-state pet projects sought by most lawmakers.
-------

Pelosi and Co. played us for fools in 2006 when they promised to make Congressional spending more transparent. Ooh, they're more honest than the corrupt GOP because they *disclose* their pork now. Not to the public of course, but Congressmen had a few hours to read over 1,000+ pages (they probably didn't) and an hour of debate before passing the $630B spending bill 370-58. Talk about moral hazard, who cares if it's taxpayer dollars!?! And this bill doesn't help Main Street very much: some aid for flood/storm victims and heating subsidies, as well as insignificant increases to unemployment assistance/food stamps. During America's worst economic crisis in decades, they pushed through this new spending bill under the radar with 2,322 pet projects totaling $6.6B. We wouldn't even know about all this if it wasn't for Taxpayers for Common Sense (http://www.taxpayer.net/). Actually the timing is fortuitous for them, because everyone is buzzing about the Wall Street rescue plan, so the media might not pay much attention to this (well Congress adjourns next week ahead of the election anyway, so they were in a hurry). And if people were discussing the bill, it was probably regarding the lifting of the offshore oil drilling moratorium portion, even though that won't affect us until 2011 at the earliest.

Bush had vowed to veto such pork-laden bills, but now he's a lame duck and Congress was crafty enough to attach the earmarks to a defense spending bill. The Bushies got a record $488B for the Pentagon, including funding for 20 more futuristic F-22 Raptor fighter planes ABOVE the number requested by the Defense Dept. (which is probably sizeable). Each one costs $138M. That's like me declaring to the IRS that I am due $5,000 reimbursement on my 2007 tax return, and they decide to give me $10,000. Why? During this serious economy crisis, why doesn't the Pentagon have to scale back like the rest of us?

What, our current aircraft aren't killing enough Muslims? Has Al Qaeda upgraded so much that our present fleet is obsolete? The F-22 project is a Boeing/Lockheed boondoggle that has wasted over $60B since 1990. It's almost as bad as the missile shield. I know it pales in comparison to the proposed $700B financial bailout, but at least with the bailout Uncle Sam gets the rights to crappy mortgage securities that *might* turn profitable some day (they did in the case of the Japanese banking crash and bailout in 2002-2006, but not to say I'm a fan of the "Paulson God Mode" plan). Well, I guess we're hoping to sell the fighters to Israel and NATO allies some day, but most of the proceeds will probably go to the defense contractors.

And somehow the auto lobbyists conned Washington into securing $25B in low-interest-loans (read: free money) for Detroit, to give them yet more time to retool their anachronistic business models for the reality of $4 gas. Ordinary citizens with good credit can't get a mortgage to save their life, but Detroit gets $25B to research what everyone else already knows!?! Uh, it's not like this came as a surprise, and look what the competition has done. European companies developed more efficient diesel and constant-variable transmission, and Japan is pumping out new 30-mpg partial-zero-emission family sedans and hybrids every year. But Detroit gives us the Escalade Hybrid, new minivans (nothing mini about them though), and Ford Flex (20 MPG highway - whoopee!). We keep subsidizing these inept morons, yet funding for scientific research, college grants, disability assistance, and various social servies keeps shrinking?

Interesting link about the previous financial bailout in Japan, and it's near success (if it wasn't for the current housing bust):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7623779.stm