Very Disturbing, CBS "60 Minutes reporting on Inside Stock Trading by Members of Congress.
(CBS News) Washington, D.C. is a town that runs on inside information - but should our elected officials be able to use that information to pad their own pockets? As Steve Kroft reports, members of Congress and their aides have regular access to powerful political intelligence, and many have made well-timed stock market trades in the very industries they regulate. For now, the practice is perfectly legal, but some say it's time for the law to change.
The following is a script of "Insiders" which aired on Nov. 13, 2011. Steve Kroft is correspondent, Ira Rosen and Gabrielle Schonder, producers.
The next national election is now less than a year away and congressmen and senators are expending much of their time and their energy raising the millions of dollars in campaign funds they'll need just to hold onto a job that pays $174,000 a year.
Few of them are doing it for the salary and all of them will say they are doing it to serve the public. But there are other benefits: Power, prestige, and the opportunity to become a Washington insider with access to information and connections that no one else has, in an environment of privilege where rules that govern the rest of the country, don't always apply to them.
Questioning Pelosi: Steve Kroft heads to D.C.
When Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, and other lawmakers wouldn't answer Steve Kroft's questions, he headed to Washington to get some answers about their stock trades.
Most former congressmen and senators manage to leave Washington - if they ever leave Washington - with more money in their pockets than they had when they arrived, and as you are about to see, the biggest challenge is often avoiding temptation.
Peter Schweizer: This is a venture opportunity. This is an opportunity to leverage your position in public service and use that position to enrich yourself, your friends, and your family.
Peter Schweizer is a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. A year ago he began working on a book about soft corruption in Washington with a team of eight student researchers, who reviewed financial disclosure records. It became a jumping off point for our own story, and we have independently verified the material we've used.
Schweizer says he wanted to know why some congressmen and senators managed to accumulate significant wealth beyond their salaries, and proved particularly adept at buying and selling stocks.
Schweizer: There are all sorts of forms of honest grafts that congressmen engage in that allow them to become very, very wealthy. So it's not illegal, but I think it's highly unethical, I think it's highly offensive, and wrong.
Steve Kroft: What do you mean honest graft?
Schweizer: For example insider trading on the stock market. If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply.
Kroft: So congressman get a pass on insider trading?
Schweizer: They do. The fact is, if you sit on a healthcare committee and you know that Medicare, for example, is-- is considering not reimbursing for a certain drug that's market moving information. And if you can trade stock on-- off of that information and do so legally, that's a great profit making opportunity. And that sort of behavior goes on.
Kroft: Why does Congress get a pass on this?
Schweizer: It's really the way the rules have been defined. And the people who make the rules are the political class in Washington. And they've conveniently written them in such a way that they don't apply to themselves.
The buying and selling of stock by corporate insiders who have access to non-public information that could affect the stock price can be a criminal offense, just ask hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam who recently got 11 years in prison for doing it. But, congressional lawmakers have no corporate responsibilities and have long been considered exempt from insider trading laws, even though they have daily access to non-public information and plenty of opportunities to trade on it.
Schweizer: We know that during the healthcare debate people were trading healthcare stocks. We know that during the financial crisis of 2008 they were getting out of the market before the rest of America really knew what was going on.
In mid September 2008 with the Dow Jones Industrial average still above ten thousand, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke were holding closed door briefings with congressional leaders, and privately warning them that a global financial meltdown could occur within a few days. One of those attending was Alabama Representative Spencer Bachus, then the ranking Republican member on the House Financial Services Committee and now its chairman.
Schweizer: These meetings were so sensitive-- that they would actually confiscate cell phones and Blackberries going into those meetings. What we know is that those meetings were held one day and literally the next day Congressman Bachus would engage in buying stock options based on apocalyptic briefings he had the day before from the Fed chairman and treasury secretary. I mean, talk about a stock tip.
While Congressman Bachus was publicly trying to keep the economy from cratering, he was privately betting that it would, buying option funds that would go up in value if the market went down. He would make a variety of trades and profited at a time when most Americans were losing their shirts.
Congressman Bachus declined to talk to us, so we went to his office and ran into his Press Secretary Tim Johnson.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Campaigning in Polk County Today
Our Campaign is campaigning in Polk County today. We will be visiting the towns of
Columbus (Downtown, near the Court House, and Veterans Park)
Cooper’s Gap (Downtown)
Historical Green Creek Township
Saluda (Downtown and Pace’s General Store)
Tryon (Downtown and Historical Trade Street)
Town of White Oak
We are looking forward to meeting everyone.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Canvassing Today
Our campaign team is in Lincoln and Cleveland County canvassing today. Looking forward to meeting everyone.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Bill Clinton believes that the "Wealthy" should pay more taxes, including himself
Former President Bill Clinton’s position on when the government should raise taxes took another turn during his Wednesday night appearance on the “Late Show with David Letterman.”
Clinton said last night he does not think now is the time to raise taxes on anyone because the economy is not growing, but advocated for a hike on the rich after the situation improves.
“Should you raise taxes on anybody right today — rich or poor or middle class? No, because there’s no growth in the economy,” Clinton said on the “Late Show.” “Should those of us who make more money and are in better position to contribute to America’s public needs and getting this deficit under control pay a higher tax rate when the economy recovers? Yes, that’s what I think.”
With that, Clinton reemphasized his support of the “Buffett Rule,” President Barack Obama’s proposed tax increase for those earning annual incomes of $1 million or more — with one critical difference.
Obama’s proposal would take effect in 2013, but Clinton says he prefers a much less specific time to institute the Buffett Rule: whenever the economy recovers.
On Friday, Clinton shot back at an American Crossroads ad that used a September interview he gave to Newsmax to attack Obama’s jobs plan. Left out of Clinton’s statement was the critical issue of timing he raised to Newsmax and Letterman.
In the Newsmax interview, Clinton said he opposed raising taxes while the economy remained down — a statement he reiterated on last night’s “Late Show.”
“I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending, either one, until we get this economy off the ground,” Clinton told Newsmax in the Sept. interview. “This has been a dead flat economy.”
American Crossroads leapt on the comments, going up with an ad last week hitting Obama’s plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans featuring lines from Clinton’s interview.
“I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes,” Clinton says in the ad. “It won’t solve the problem.”
The two lines, however, were more than three minutes apart in his discussion with Newsmax — the second statement came later in the interview when the former president said he would pay the increased tax on the wealthy. “It’s okay with me, I’d pay more, but it won’t solve the problem,” he said.
Clinton quickly shot back at American Crossroads, issuing a statement last Friday saying the group mischaracterized his statements. But unlike his comments to Newsmax and Letterman, Clinton left out his oft-repeated argument in favor of boosting millionaires’ taxes when the economy “recovers” or gets “off the ground.”
“The Republican Group American Crossroads has used a quote from me in a video opposing President Obama’s jobs plan and the ‘Buffett Rule,’” Clinton said in a statement to POLITICO Playbook on the ad. “The advertisement implies that I opposed the ‘Buffett Rule.’ In fact, I support both the American Jobs Act and the ‘Buffett Rule.’ I believe that it’s only fair to ask those of us in high-income groups — who have received the primary benefits of the last decade’s economic growth and the majority of its tax cuts as well — to contribute to solving our long term debt problem.”
“What I did say was that the ‘Buffett Rule’ cannot solve the problem alone. Reducing the debt requires three things: more economic growth, more spending cuts, and more revenue. Right now, the most important thing is to put America back to work. That’s why I support the American Jobs Act.”
Clinton said last night he does not think now is the time to raise taxes on anyone because the economy is not growing, but advocated for a hike on the rich after the situation improves.
“Should you raise taxes on anybody right today — rich or poor or middle class? No, because there’s no growth in the economy,” Clinton said on the “Late Show.” “Should those of us who make more money and are in better position to contribute to America’s public needs and getting this deficit under control pay a higher tax rate when the economy recovers? Yes, that’s what I think.”
With that, Clinton reemphasized his support of the “Buffett Rule,” President Barack Obama’s proposed tax increase for those earning annual incomes of $1 million or more — with one critical difference.
Obama’s proposal would take effect in 2013, but Clinton says he prefers a much less specific time to institute the Buffett Rule: whenever the economy recovers.
On Friday, Clinton shot back at an American Crossroads ad that used a September interview he gave to Newsmax to attack Obama’s jobs plan. Left out of Clinton’s statement was the critical issue of timing he raised to Newsmax and Letterman.
In the Newsmax interview, Clinton said he opposed raising taxes while the economy remained down — a statement he reiterated on last night’s “Late Show.”
“I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending, either one, until we get this economy off the ground,” Clinton told Newsmax in the Sept. interview. “This has been a dead flat economy.”
American Crossroads leapt on the comments, going up with an ad last week hitting Obama’s plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans featuring lines from Clinton’s interview.
“I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes,” Clinton says in the ad. “It won’t solve the problem.”
The two lines, however, were more than three minutes apart in his discussion with Newsmax — the second statement came later in the interview when the former president said he would pay the increased tax on the wealthy. “It’s okay with me, I’d pay more, but it won’t solve the problem,” he said.
Clinton quickly shot back at American Crossroads, issuing a statement last Friday saying the group mischaracterized his statements. But unlike his comments to Newsmax and Letterman, Clinton left out his oft-repeated argument in favor of boosting millionaires’ taxes when the economy “recovers” or gets “off the ground.”
“The Republican Group American Crossroads has used a quote from me in a video opposing President Obama’s jobs plan and the ‘Buffett Rule,’” Clinton said in a statement to POLITICO Playbook on the ad. “The advertisement implies that I opposed the ‘Buffett Rule.’ In fact, I support both the American Jobs Act and the ‘Buffett Rule.’ I believe that it’s only fair to ask those of us in high-income groups — who have received the primary benefits of the last decade’s economic growth and the majority of its tax cuts as well — to contribute to solving our long term debt problem.”
“What I did say was that the ‘Buffett Rule’ cannot solve the problem alone. Reducing the debt requires three things: more economic growth, more spending cuts, and more revenue. Right now, the most important thing is to put America back to work. That’s why I support the American Jobs Act.”
Saturday, October 8, 2011
OKTOBERFEST IN HICKORY, NC
Our campaign had a very successful day at Oktoberfest in Hickory. We met a lot of great people, and we handed out every brochure, every pamphlet, every sign, and every piece of literature that we had on us. Very successful day. I wanted to thank everyone for their hard work. It is paying off.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Oktoberfest in Hickory, NC
Our campaign is currently in Hickory for Oktoberfest. We are meeting some great people. We have a booth at the event, and would love for everyone to come out and join us. Great Food, Great People!!!!! You cannot beat it.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Record-low SAT scores a Wake-up Call
Last week, the College Board dealt parents, teachers and the education world a serious blow. According to its latest test results, "SAT reading scores for the high school class of 2011 were the lowest on record, and combined reading and math scores fell to their lowest point since 1995."
The reading scores, which stand at 497, are noticeably lower than just six years ago, when they stood at 508. And it's just the second time in the last 20 years that reading scores have dropped so precipitously in a single year.
Yet, according to the College Board, there is no reason to panic. The results, they say, "reflect the record size and diversity of the pool of test-takers. As more students aim for college and take the exam, it tends to drag down average scores."
Since when has diversity and more students taking the test become a legitimate excuse for bad scores? A conservative certainly could not get away with blaming falling test scores on diversity. Imagine the outcry.
Increased diversity and student participation are very good things, but we should not console ourselves with excuses for falling scores, especially considering the amount of money we spend each year on education.
The 2011 budget for the Department of Education is estimated to top $70 billion, while overall spending on public elementary and secondary education is about $600 billion a year. By comparison, in 1972, before the Department of Education even existed, SAT critical reading scores for college-bound seniors were above 525, more than 20 points higher than they are today, while today's math scores are only slightly better than in 1972.
As the United States increases education spending, our students' scores should not be getting worse. For a long time, I, along with other conservative reformers, have been saying that real reform means more than throwing money at the problem. Now, an unexpected voice from across the political spectrum is agreeing.
Steven Brill, founder of Court TV and The American Lawyer magazine, and author of the new book "Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America's Schools," has turned the journalistic magnifying glass on the nation's public schools and teachers' unions. Brill's book is one of the most in-depth and closely researched looks into the modern workings of the education "blob" in recent memory. And Brill is a liberal, a very thoughtful and careful liberal, and he is criticizing the heart of liberal power: the teachers' unions.
Brill closely traces the modern education reform movement from Race to the Top, to KIPP Academies, to Teach for America, to such high-profile reformers as Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein, while lamenting obvious long-standing barriers to educational improvement such as the "last in, first out" policy that requires teachers to be laid off based purely on seniority rather than performance.
Brill scours the inner workings of public school teachers' contracts, uncovering such gems as a New York City contract provision "allowing the principal no say over the format of a lesson plan."
He recounts his exposure of New York City's infamous "rubber rooms," where hundreds of teachers under investigation for misconduct or incompetence were sidelined for years at full pay with nothing to do but watch the clock tick down each day. The practice was discontinued after his reporting revealed it.
In another illustrative case study, Brill compares Harlem Success I, a charter school, with P.S. 149, a traditional public school. Both schools happen to share the same building in New York City, with very similar students, parents, socioeconomic conditions and environments. But Harlem Success blows P.S. 149 out of the water. Eighty-six percent of its students were proficient in English in 2010, compared with 29% of P.S. 149's.
Throughout the book, Brill uses examples like these to explain how fossilized teacher union contracts, lax or nonexistent teacher evaluations, and unmovable wages and benefits have straitjacketed any hope of real reform. The solution, Brill says, is to overhaul the public school education system in order to motivate and inspire better teachers. Rewriting union contracts and paying teachers based on performance, not seniority, are among the first steps Brill advises. The United States can afford to pay our nation's best teachers more, while holding bad teachers accountable and paying them accordingly.
Brill's work represents a real tug-of-war inside the Democratic Party, between the teachers' unions and modern reformers, for control of the nation's education machine. The old guard of the Democratic Party, the AFT and NEA, believe that the blame for stagnant and falling test scores falls on anyone but them. Yet, new Democratic voices, such as Cory Booker, Geoffrey Canada and Rhee, are vocally questioning what was once unquestionable -- that contracts, wages, benefits, accountability and standards need sensible reforms.
The latest drop in SAT reading scores should not be written off as a statistical outlier, but should be a wake-up call to heed the chorus of reformers, conservatives and liberals alike, whose prescriptions are timely, relevant and might be just what we need to turn our public schools around.
The reading scores, which stand at 497, are noticeably lower than just six years ago, when they stood at 508. And it's just the second time in the last 20 years that reading scores have dropped so precipitously in a single year.
Yet, according to the College Board, there is no reason to panic. The results, they say, "reflect the record size and diversity of the pool of test-takers. As more students aim for college and take the exam, it tends to drag down average scores."
Since when has diversity and more students taking the test become a legitimate excuse for bad scores? A conservative certainly could not get away with blaming falling test scores on diversity. Imagine the outcry.
The 2011 budget for the Department of Education is estimated to top $70 billion, while overall spending on public elementary and secondary education is about $600 billion a year. By comparison, in 1972, before the Department of Education even existed, SAT critical reading scores for college-bound seniors were above 525, more than 20 points higher than they are today, while today's math scores are only slightly better than in 1972.
As the United States increases education spending, our students' scores should not be getting worse. For a long time, I, along with other conservative reformers, have been saying that real reform means more than throwing money at the problem. Now, an unexpected voice from across the political spectrum is agreeing.
Steven Brill, founder of Court TV and The American Lawyer magazine, and author of the new book "Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America's Schools," has turned the journalistic magnifying glass on the nation's public schools and teachers' unions. Brill's book is one of the most in-depth and closely researched looks into the modern workings of the education "blob" in recent memory. And Brill is a liberal, a very thoughtful and careful liberal, and he is criticizing the heart of liberal power: the teachers' unions.
Brill closely traces the modern education reform movement from Race to the Top, to KIPP Academies, to Teach for America, to such high-profile reformers as Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein, while lamenting obvious long-standing barriers to educational improvement such as the "last in, first out" policy that requires teachers to be laid off based purely on seniority rather than performance.
Brill scours the inner workings of public school teachers' contracts, uncovering such gems as a New York City contract provision "allowing the principal no say over the format of a lesson plan."
He recounts his exposure of New York City's infamous "rubber rooms," where hundreds of teachers under investigation for misconduct or incompetence were sidelined for years at full pay with nothing to do but watch the clock tick down each day. The practice was discontinued after his reporting revealed it.
In another illustrative case study, Brill compares Harlem Success I, a charter school, with P.S. 149, a traditional public school. Both schools happen to share the same building in New York City, with very similar students, parents, socioeconomic conditions and environments. But Harlem Success blows P.S. 149 out of the water. Eighty-six percent of its students were proficient in English in 2010, compared with 29% of P.S. 149's.
Throughout the book, Brill uses examples like these to explain how fossilized teacher union contracts, lax or nonexistent teacher evaluations, and unmovable wages and benefits have straitjacketed any hope of real reform. The solution, Brill says, is to overhaul the public school education system in order to motivate and inspire better teachers. Rewriting union contracts and paying teachers based on performance, not seniority, are among the first steps Brill advises. The United States can afford to pay our nation's best teachers more, while holding bad teachers accountable and paying them accordingly.
Brill's work represents a real tug-of-war inside the Democratic Party, between the teachers' unions and modern reformers, for control of the nation's education machine. The old guard of the Democratic Party, the AFT and NEA, believe that the blame for stagnant and falling test scores falls on anyone but them. Yet, new Democratic voices, such as Cory Booker, Geoffrey Canada and Rhee, are vocally questioning what was once unquestionable -- that contracts, wages, benefits, accountability and standards need sensible reforms.
The latest drop in SAT reading scores should not be written off as a statistical outlier, but should be a wake-up call to heed the chorus of reformers, conservatives and liberals alike, whose prescriptions are timely, relevant and might be just what we need to turn our public schools around.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Americans express historic negativity toward U.S. government
A record-high 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed, adding to negativity that has been building over the past 10 years.
Majorities of Democrats (65%) and Republicans (92%) are dissatisfied with the nation's governance. This perhaps reflects the shared political power arrangement in the nation's capital, with Democrats controlling the White House and U.S. Senate, and Republicans controlling the House of Representatives. Partisans on both sides can thus find fault with government without necessarily blaming their own party.
The findings are from Gallup's annual Governance survey, updated Sept. 8-11, 2011. The same poll shows record or near-record criticism of Congress, elected officials, government handling of domestic problems, the scope of government power, and government waste of tax dollars.
Key Findings:
Majorities of Democrats (65%) and Republicans (92%) are dissatisfied with the nation's governance. This perhaps reflects the shared political power arrangement in the nation's capital, with Democrats controlling the White House and U.S. Senate, and Republicans controlling the House of Representatives. Partisans on both sides can thus find fault with government without necessarily blaming their own party.
The findings are from Gallup's annual Governance survey, updated Sept. 8-11, 2011. The same poll shows record or near-record criticism of Congress, elected officials, government handling of domestic problems, the scope of government power, and government waste of tax dollars.
Key Findings:
- 82% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job.
- 69% say they have little or no confidence in the legislative branch of government, an all-time high and up from 63% in 2010.
- 57% have little or no confidence in the federal government to solve domestic problems, exceeding the previous high of 53% recorded in 2010 and well exceeding the 43% who have little or no confidence in the government to solve international problems.
- 53% have little or no confidence in the men and women who seek or hold elected office.
- Americans believe, on average, that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every tax dollar, similar to a year ago, but up significantly from 46 cents a decade ago and from an average 43 cents three decades ago.
- 49% of Americans believe the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. In 2003, less than a third (30%) believed this.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Wynn For Congress
We want to hear from the people of District 10. We want to hear their comments, concerns, and issues. Our campaign is about the "people" of the District.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)