The Cantor Cartwheel On Insider Trading
Posted: February 11, 2012 Filed under: Congress, corporate money, corruption, Democratic Politics, ethics, legislation, Politics as Usual, Republican politics, Senate, Stock Market, U.S. Politics, We are so F'd 22 CommentsWhile our eyes and fury were directed on the birth-control-is-evil crowd and the ludicrous threats of the National Razor coming to a town near
you, the insider trading bill wended its merry way through Congress. Only a provision in the Senate version of STOCK [Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act] was stripped from the House version. The bill will return to the Senate, and then most likely go into conference committee to iron out differences.
The deletion of the provision is curious since it would have required Washington insiders, those who sell political intelligence to corporate America [financial institutions], to register in advance like any lobbyist, thereby making their identities and purpose transparent.
One senator reacted to the provision’s removal this way:
It’s astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision. The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that’s behind the scenes. If the Senate language is too broad, as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? I hope to see a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a House-Senate conference or other means. If Congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it.
That would be a Democrat complaining, right?
Wrong.
That would be Republican Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa protesting House member Eric Cantor for removing the provision [Grassley’s add on], ultimately making the bill substantially weaker than it could have been.
And ‘political intelligence industry?’ Sounds like something straight out of an Ian Fleming novel. Turns out this shadowy practice is a $100 million industry, employing 2000 people who sneak around Congress to pick up investment tips for Wall Street.
You cannot make this stuff up!
In any case, it was Eric Cantor who tabled the original effort to suspend insider trading back in December. Also removed was a bipartisan amendment by Senators Patrick Leahy [D VT] and John Cornyn [R TX] made to crack down on officials ‘self-dealing,’ that is, enriching themselves through their positions.
The question is: why the not-so-clever foot dragging on this bill, something that makes perfect sense to the American public? Why ditch Grassley’s provision or the Leahy/Cronyn amendment, which would have added additional teeth?
As in, make it better.
According to initial comments, Cantor claimed the language too broad and the additional provisions ‘needed more study.’ Seems to me the study-until-we-drop reason was cited back in December.
But Cantor did add a touch of his own that would restrict legislators from participating or benefiting from IPOs. This addition quickly became tagged the ‘Pelosi provision,’ inspired by the suggestion that Pelosi’s husband had taken advantage of insider information when he bought into a VISA public offering, making a tidy profit [230% increase, by some accounts]. Pelosi has denied this accusation, insisting that her husband’s buys were directed by a traditional Wells Fargo broker.
Wish my broker was that good!
Cheap political tricks and posturing happen all too frequently but why would Cantor be so adamant in weakening a bill the public and a surprising number of Congressional members favor?
Republic Report suggests we look at Cantor’s history, specifically the issue of mortgage cram down in 2009.
Eric Cantor led the Republican refusal to consider the mortgage cramdown proposals in 2009, a measure that would have permitted homeowners to negotiate lower interest rates and avoid foreclosure. However, what was not common knowledge [see Open Secrets. org] was that Cantor’s personal wealth was heavily involved in the mortgage industry itself. From RR:
Cantor invested in several mortgage banks, and owned a portion of a Cantor-family run mortgage company. According to Cantor’s 2009 personal disclosure, Cantor owned up to a $500,000 share of a mortgage company called TrustMor run by his brother.
While Cantor blocked a fix to the foreclosure crisis, his wife Diane Cantor served as the managing director of a bank with a high foreclosure rate. Diane Cantor at the time worked as a managing director to New York Private Bank & Trust, a major mortgage bank and TARP recipient. SNL Financial reported that Cantor’s bank was among the top three banks in the mortgage business “with thegreatest percentage of family loans in the foreclosure process.
There was also the dustup during the debt ceiling debate last year when a revealed fund Cantor was invested in, stood to make a sizeable profit if the US actually defaulted on its debt. If the country tanked, Cantor stood to win.
Such loyalty!
Personally, I liked Cantor’s chest thumping after wicked storms savaged the South and East Coast last spring [my house and property suffered nearly $20,000 in damages with 1600+lbs of debris dragged from the front and back yard]. For his Tea Party audience, Cantor tried bucking disaster relief until expenses [like unemployment checks and food stamps] were cut elsewhere. But then amazingly, Cantor made a sharp pivot and complained FEMA was far too slow in addressing damage relief in his own Virginia district.
Consistency is a beautiful thing!
So, we have the Pelosi Provision and the Cantor Cartwheel, anything to stall a DC scrub down, the disinfectant treatment that the American public demands [at the very minimum] from their representatives–abiding by the laws, standards and a sense of ‘doing the right thing.’ You know, those principles that presumably apply to everyone.
BTW, the Sunlight Foundation has provided the House/Cantor Version of the STOCK bill with edits [strikeouts] included. Most instructive!
Don’t you love the Internet??? Bet Cartwheel Cantor doesn’t.
And though I would have nominated Eric Cantor for Sellout of the Week, Republic Report has chosen President Obama, primarily based on his recent decision to embrace Super PAC money [though I suspect we could all come up with other examples]. However, the President opened himself up to this chastising because he warned about unlimited campaign spending in 2008:
Let me be clear — this isn’t just about ending the failed policies of the Bush years; it’s about ending the failed system in Washington that produces those policies. For far too long, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, Washington has allowed Wall Street to use lobbyists and campaign contributions to rig the system and get its way, no matter what it costs ordinary Americans.
That was then, this is now.
Did you know that one of the collective nouns used to describe a group of weasels is . . . SNEAK. How perfect is that?
Thursday Reads: Male Politicians and Pundits should Worry about their “Erectile Dysfunction” and STFU about Women’s Health (and Other News)
Posted: February 9, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, 2012 primaries, morning reads, religious extremists, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Republican politics, Republican presidential politics, Team Obama, U.S. Politics, War on Women, Women's Rights | Tags: autonomy, Birth Control, chastity belt, Chris Matthews, contraception, EJ Dionne, history of birth control, Mark Shields, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, privacy, Rick Santorum, sponges, Tim Kaine 50 CommentsGood Morning!
I thought this painting was appropriate, since we are being dragged back into the 19th Century by both Democrats and Republicans these days. We all know about the war on women being waged by Willard “Mitt” Romney, Rick “the Dick” Santorum, Nasty Newt Gingrich and Ron “White Power” Paul. But Democrats have now been empowered the Catholic Church’s attack on Obama’s attempt to protect women’s health care.
But now “liberal” pundits like Chris Matthews, Mark Shields, and E.J. Dionne have joined the battle to remove any semblance of privacy and autonomy from women.
Today former DNC Chairman and Governor of VA–and likely Senate candidate Tim Kaine came out against the requirement that contraception be included in health insurance policies.
Pat J is right. We need a women’s freedom party. Aren’t any of these dinosaurs aware that birth control (and abortion) have been with us during most of recorded history? Check out this series of photos in Newsweek drawn from the history of birth control.
Did you know that Aristotle recommended birth control methods for women in the 4th Century BC?
The philosopher recommended that women “anoint that part of the womb on which the seed falls” with olive oil in order to prevent pregnancy. His other top picks for spermicides included cedar oil, lead ointment, or frankincense oil. If the lips of the cervix were smooth, he noted, then conception would be difficult.
Ancient Egyptian women used sponges.
Long before Seinfeld’s Elaine Benes weighed the merits of a man to determine his spongeworthiness, women were using sponges as a method of preventing pregnancy. The sponge has its roots in early Egyptian civilization, and this photo depicts the variety of models available in the early 20th century. Those sponges were made of a variety of materials, and were sometimes drenched in lemon juice or vinegar to act as a spermicide. Today’s sponges (called, in fact, Today’s Sponge) are synthetic, and use a chemical spermicide.
Another early method was the chastity belt. Perhaps religious nuts like Rick Santorum and Mark Shields would find that one acceptable?
At Wonkblog, Sarah Kliff thinks the Obama administration “sees political opportunity in the contraception battle,” because of the data shown in this chart:
Kliff writes:
while Catholic leadership has blasted the new regulation, polls show that a majority of Catholics are actually more supportive of the provision than the rest of the country. A poll out Tuesday from the Public Religion Research Institute finds 52 percent of Catholic voters agreed with the statement, “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” That’s pretty much in line with overall support for the provision, which hovers at 55 percent – likely because Catholics use contraceptives at rates similar to the rest of Americans.
A majority of Catholics – 52 percent – also agree with the Obama administration’s decision to not exempt religious hospitals and universities from the provision. “Outside the political punditry, most Catholics agree with the administration on the issue,” says one Obama campaign official, explaining the view that this could be a political win.
And a lot of this likely isn’t about Catholic voters at all.
Rather, it may well be about the demographics that are most supportive of this particular health reform provision: young voters and women. In the PRRI poll, both groups register support above 60 percent for the provision.
Those two demographics are important here for a key reason: they were crucial to Obama’s victory in 2008. Third Way crunched the numbers earlier this month and found that the “Obama Independents” — the swing group that proved crucial to his 2008 victory — are, as Ryan Lizza put it, “disproportionately young, female and secular.”
Let’s hope Obama keeps all that in mind instead of bending to the will of the old gray white male Catholic Bishops and the elderly male fake-liberal pundits who won’t STFU and let women make their own choices.
Even some of the saner folks in the GOP are warning their wingnut colleagues that a fight against contraception would be a “disaster” for their party.
Blowback against Specific acts of Religious Intolerance seeking legal status is not a War against Religion
Posted: February 8, 2012 Filed under: 2012 primaries, religion, religious extremists, right wing hate grouups, science, U.S. Politics 10 Comments
For a group of people obsessed about the possibility that Shari’a law might creep into US Law, christofascists sure seem to thrive on forcing their own brand of it. All the while, there’s this claim of a “war against religion”. Forcing other people to suffer from unjust and unconstitutional laws in the name of religion is not the kind of religious freedom the founders had in mind when they penned the first amendment. Religious status does not give any person or institution the ability to ignore law. Asking for enforcement of law against narrow religious doctrine does not constitution a war against religion. Our country is not suppose to favor any one religion or enshrine its pet biases into law. However, it seems every major Republican candidate hates our Constitution. How can these people truly seek an office where they are sworn to uphold it yet desire to twist the Age of Reason right out of it?
These are the same folks that have declared jihad on women’s reproductive health, science, and mathematics. Yes, remember Copernicus who had the audacity to discover that the earth revolved around the sun JUST, FINALLY got a proper burial in 2010. It only took him 600 years and hundreds of years of science to get his ticket out of hell for heresy. Meanwhile, Rick Santorum–who swept a round of beauty contests with record low turnouts–is still proving there are people out there that probably think that Galileo and Copernicus are wrong. Galileo got his apology in 1992 nearly 600 years after his death. He died in 1642. Let’s not forget the persecution and stalking of Jean-François Champollion whose Rosetta stone proved that Egypt had existed straight through the supposed dating of the great flood. That’s just a few examples from science. The use of religious texts to support slavery, ownership of all married women and children, persecution of GLBT populations around world, and wars and acts of terrorism is omnipresent. Standing against these things and creating laws to make them illegal does not mean you’re against religion. It means you are for the constitutional separation of church and state and ensuring the basic constitution granted rights of all individuals. No one’s “God” wrote the Constitution. Men afraid of religious dictatorships and intolerance did.
Why wouldn’t rational, freedom loving people want to stop the creep of christofascist biblical law wherever possible? It’s not a war against religion. It’s blowback against those who are trying to force narrow religious doctrine onto the rest of us and into law. Luckily, even Antonin Scalia has written about the complete unconstitutionality of all this.
As conservative (and Catholic) Justice Antonin Scalia explained in a Supreme Court opinion more than twenty years ago, a law does not suddenly become unconstitutional because someone raises a religious objective to it — if this actually were true, anyone at all could immunize themselves from paying taxes or from any other law simply by claiming they have a religious objection to being a law-abiding citizen.
We have all just about had it with the Catholic Bishops, Pat Robertson, and all that crap that seems to have come to culmination in the candidacy of Rick Santorum. Where’s that trademarked Santorum outrage about Cardinal Edward Egan who withdrew his apology for illegally covering up instances of pedophilia on his watch? Nope, don’t wait for it. Santorum’s too busy insisting that President Obama wants to force the Catholic Church to accept women priests. The one thing that I’ve really learned in this primary election is that Republican politicians feel so emboldened by the current hatefest in the base that they will lie about anything and know that Fox News will repeat it every chance they can.
For weeks, Republicans have pretended that President Obama is waging some kind of war on religion because his administration recently approved regulations requiring insurers to cover contraceptive care — spurred on in large part because the conservative U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes the contraceptive care regulations. Their claim is utterly absurd. The new rules exempt churches from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception. And they align closely with the beliefs of actual Catholics, 58 percent of whombelieve that employers should be required to provide insurance that cover contraception.
On Fox News this morning, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum doubled down on this bizarre claim that Obama is going after religion — falsely claiming that the president wants to tell Catholics who they can hire as priests:
What they’ve done here is a direct assault on the First Amendment, not only a direct assault on the freedom of religion, by forcing people specifically to do things that are against their religious teachings. . . . This is a president who, just recently, in this Hosanna-Tabor case was basically making the argument that Catholics had to, you know, maybe even had to go so far as to hire women priests to comply with employment discrimination issues. This is a very hostile president to people of faith. He’s a hostile president, not just to people of faith, but to all freedoms.
Again, if the first amendment was really serious about that then as a Buddhist, I’d like all my war tax money back now. I’d also like to argue that Rastafarians should be allowed all the legal pot they want for their sacraments. Then, let’s just go back to letting all those Mormons have multiple child brides. Religious organizations do not get to exempt themselves from laws. Again, check the Scalia reference above.
The deal is that Santorum and the Bishops and some of these other full time misogynists posing as Pharisees have had trouble with every law that’s given women the ability to make adult decisions about their own selves. This includes the SCOTUS decision giving women the constitutional right to birth control and abortion. Ron Paul has pretty much said that he doesn’t believe it’s possible for a husband to rape a wife. That falls under the laws that existed in this country prior to 1882 when women were literally written in as an appendage of the husband. Married women were not considered separate individuals which is why in many states they couldn’t own property.
It gets worse. Paul hangs around with Christian Reconstructionists. These folks are truly scary.
Reconstructionism, the right-wing religious-political school of thought founded by Rousas John Rushdoony. The ultimate goal of Christian Reconstructionists is to reconstitute the law of the Hebrew Bible — which calls for the execution of adulterers and men who have sex with other men — as the law of the land. The Constitution Party constitutes the political wing of Reconstructionism, and the CP has found a good friend in Ron Paul.
When Paul launched his second presidential quest in 2008, he won the endorsement of Rev. Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist pastor who travels in Christian Reconstructionist circles, though he is not precisely a Reconstructionist himself (for reasons having to do with his interpretation of how the end times will go down). When Paul dropped out of the race, instead of endorsing Republican nominee John McCain, or even Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Paul endorsed Constitution Party presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin (who promised, in his acceptance speech, to uphold the Constitution Party platform, which looks curiously similar to the Ron Paul agenda, right down to the no-exceptions abortion proscription and ending the Fed).
At his shadow rally that year in Minneapolis, held on the eve of the Republican National Convention, Paul invited Constitution Party founder Howard Phillips, a Christian Reconstructionist, to address the crowd of end-the-Fed-cheering post-pubescents. (In his early congressional career, Julie Ingersoll writes in Religion Dispatches, Paul hired as a staffer Gary North, a Christian Reconstructionist leader and Rushdoony’s son-in-law.)
At a “Pastor’s Forum” at Baldwin’s Baptist church in Pensacola, Florida, Paul was asked by a congregant about his lack of support for Israel, which many right-wing Christians support because of the role Israel plays in what is known as premillennialist end-times theology. “Premillennialist” refers to the belief that after Jesus returns, according to conditions on the ground in Israel, the righteous will rule. But Christian Reconstructionists have a different view, believing the righteous must first rule for 1,000 years before Jesus will return.
They also believe, according to Clarkson, “that ‘the Christians’ are the ‘new chosen people of God,’ commanded to do what ‘Adam in Eden and Israel in Canaan failed to do…create the society that God requires.’ Further, Jews, once the ‘chosen people,’ failed to live up to God’s covenant and therefore are no longer God’s chosen. Christians, of the correct sort, now are.”
Responding to Baldwin’s congregant, Paul explained, “I may see it slightly differently than others because I think of the Israeli government as different than what I read about in the Bible. I mean, the Israeli government doesn’t happen to be reflecting God’s views. Some of them are atheist, and their form of government is not what I would support… And there are some people who interpret the chosen people as not being so narrowly defined as only the Jews — that maybe there’s a broader definition of that.”
Again, if you hang around folks that basically want to tear apart the constitution and insert their own religious views in place of secular law, you’re not a conservative. You’re not a libertarian. Hell, you’re not even really supporting our Constitution and basic shared American Values. Again, these are the people that say there is a religious war because they’ve basically started one. They and their Republican Toadies need to be stopped.
I wont even get into the Romney/Mormon thing because BostonBoomer has already covered a lot of that. These are not just simply pious folks that you meet at your local church potluck. They are all fanatics and they deserve all the blowback we can muster. It would be one thing if they all weren’t so politically active and they didn’t have such a huge impact on one political party. Again, this isn’t just the practice of religion, this is the practice of a zealotry akin to political terrorism. We need to recognize and call it exactly that before our rights are crushed by their very narrow interpretations of what’s science, what’s American, and what’s moral.














Recent Comments