Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (32708)	2/14/2009 6:20:15 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 71588

Burris confirms request for Blagojevich donation Feb 14 05:29 PM US/Eastern By JOHN O'CONNOR Associated Press Writer SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - Sen. Roland Burris admitted in a document released Saturday that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother asked him for campaign fundraising help before the governor appointed Burris to the Senate. The disclosure is at odds with Burris' testimony in January when an Illinois House impeachment committee specifically asked if he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or other aides to the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. State Rep. Jim Durkin, the impeachment committee's ranking Republican, told The Associated Press that he and House Republican Leader Tom Cross would seek an outside investigation into whether Burris perjured himself. Burris issued a statement Saturday saying he voluntarily gave the committee a Feb. 4 affidavit disclosing the contact with Robert Blagojevich because "there were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony to the impeachment committee." The affidavit, released Saturday by Burris' office, said Robert Blagojevich called him three times—once in October and twice after the November election—to seek his fundraising assistance. Robert Blagojevich's attorney said his client believes one of the conversations was recorded by the FBI. Burris, a Democrat like the governor, said he told Robert Blagojevich he would not raise money because it would look like he was trying to win favor from the governor for his appointment. But he said he did ask the governor's brother "what was going on with the selection of a successor" to Obama in the Senate and "he said he had heard my name mentioned in the discussions." It's the second time Burris has changed his story. In an unsolicited affidavit to the impeachment committee on Jan. 6, Burris said he had only one limited conversation with the governor before accepting the Senate appointment. Then, appearing before the committee Jan. 8, he said he told former Blagojevich aide-turned-lobbyist Lon Monk last summer that he was interested in the post. The governor appointed Burris, a former state attorney general, to the Senate seat on Dec. 30, three weeks after federal agents arrested Blagojevich on a complaint alleging he had tried to trade the appointment for campaign cash or a high-paying job. The state House impeached Blagojevich and the state Senate removed him from office on Jan. 29. Senate Democrats in Washington initially said they would not seat anyone appointed by Blagojevich but eventually relented. One condition of their acceptance was Burris' impeachment committee testimony under oath that there were no "pay to play" promises exchanged in his appointment. State House impeachment committee chairwoman Barbara Flynn Currie, a Democrat, said she had received the Feb. 4 affidavit but had not had time to compare it to Burris' testimony. The affidavit discloses for the first time that Burris believes he likely told former Blagojevich advisers Doug Scofield and John Wyma of his interest in the post at a fundraiser in June and later asked about it when he spoke to Blagojevich chief of staff John Harris, who was arrested with Blagojevich on Dec. 9. Scofield, Wyma and Harris were among the Blagojevich associates Burris was asked about in his Jan. 8 testimony by Durkin. In response, Burris said he had spoken only to Monk. "This wasn't a couple of questions that I can understand someone may forget, it goes way beyond that," Durkin said Saturday. "To say that he wasn't given the opportunity to explain himself is a load of B.S." Durkin said he doesn't trust majority Democrats in the General Assembly to conduct a fair investigation into whether Burris perjured himself. But he said he doesn't know yet who should conduct the inquiry. A log of Harris' calls released to The Associated Press by the governor's office indicates Burris called Harris four times in November—the last time on Nov. 26, when the log indicates the two spoke. Burris' affidavit says he had called Harris to recommend his nephew for a state job and during the conversation asked about the Senate seat. A spokeswoman for Burris said he would not make himself available for interviews Saturday. Robert Blagojevich's lawyer, Michael Ettinger, said his client contacted Burris in October to ask him to host a fundraiser for his brother because Burris had contributed in the past, but Burris said he didn't want to commit before the election. Ettinger said the subject of the Senate seat wasn't raised. Ettinger said Robert Blagojevich remembers only one other conversation in November from the governor's campaign office, which the FBI had wiretapped at the time. He said his client confirmed Burris' account that he declined the fundraiser because of the potential conflict. But he also told Ettinger no one on his brother's staff had ever mentioned Burris as being interested in the seat. Glenn Selig, a spokesman for the former governor, did not have an immediate comment. In explaining his incomplete testimony, Burris said in the affidavit he recalled mentioning Monk "but was then asked another question and did not mention anyone else." His lawyer, Timothy Wright III, said in a cover letter Burris answered "truthfully and to the best of his recollection," but that the "fluid nature" of the questioning and a review of the transcript showed Burris that he "was unable to fully respond to several matters."

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (32708)	2/15/2009 2:48:15 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 71588

Re: "Buddy, tax rates matter. Look at Revenue vs. Outlay as a percentage of GDP (i made a chart from data here: whitehouse.gov ) and you see just how severely revenue dropped off, as a percentage of gdp. By contrast, the rise in outlays is much less severe, showing the loss of revenue to be the larger factor. The last time you see such a drastic drop (though it's smaller) is after Reagan's tax cuts." I am not disagreeing with that statement you just made that "revenue matters". Revenue does matter (and what your chart clearly shows is a big drop in government revenue --- over the mid-range of years --- following the points in time when Reagan or Bush made the changes to tax policy that resulted in the immediate drop in revenue to the government. And this ties back in to one of the points I made earlier... that WHEN revenues are reduced by policy changes, AND spending is NOT concomitantly reduced to keep the books in balance... THEN government BORROWING immediately goes up: Directly adding to the national debt (the big problem discussed in my earlier post), and slowing all future economic growth. However, when you say "tax rates matter" (& I agree), it is also fair to point out that reductions in tax rates have an immediately beneficial effect on the economy... and that only turns NEGATIVE when the economic illiterates and blowhards in Washington refuse to reduce their spending to compensate for lower revenue. Because Lowered Revenue plus Same or Higher Spending = INCREASED GOVERNMENT BORROWING. And, when government borrowing rises primarily to 'plug the hole in the budget' so as to permit SPENDING to remain high... problems (while they may be delayed a while) are INEVITABLE. The point that was argued consistently throughout the Bush I and the Bush II and the Reagan years. The primary difference during the Clinton or Kennedy/Johnson years was (apart from the budgets never being allowed to fall so far out of fiscal balance as a percentage of national product) was that HIGHER ECONOMIC GROWTH (higher rate of appreciation in GNP) brought about a "virtuous loop", the "rising tide lifts all boats" phenomena. And, considered over a longer time frame, faster economic growth can cover and out-match a host of other economic blemishes or mistakes. So... while it is certainly both fair and correct to say as you do that "tax rates matter", I would come back with the observation that EVERY IMPORTANT ECONOMIC FACTOR MATTERS (and not just one, they are all inter-related). But, probably 'first among equals' is HIGHER ECONOMIC GROWTH. If you can achieve that (and, after all, that is the main goal isn't it?) then the rising tide effect spreads wealth everywhere, and all the other indicators turn 'green' as well. :-)