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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (47226)	11/15/2010 10:39:54 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71588

Ethics Panel Finding Hints at Guilty Verdict for Rangel Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) leaves his ethics trial Monday on Capitol Hill after protesting his lack of a lawyer. .WASHINGTON—A House ethics panel sitting in judgment of Rep. Charles Rangel agreed Monday to all of the prosecution evidence against him, despite his attempt to delay the case by walking out for lack of a lawyer. In retreating from the trial on its first day, the New York Democrat said he could no longer afford a lawyer and that it was unfair to make him proceed without one. The panel's finding to accept as fact the case's details doesn't by itself represent a guilty verdict, but it strongly suggests the panel will find he violated House ethics rules. Lawmakers will reconvene Tuesday morning. The hearing is a rarity and represents a public test of Congress's ability to police itself; Mr. Rangel's case is the first to be heard under tougher rules adopted two years ago. Almost as soon as it closes the Rangel file, the committee will take up the ethics trial of another lawmaker, Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.). Charlie Rangel is preparing to face his ethics trial starting Monday without a lawyer, defending himself. WSJ's Devlin Barrett gives a rundown of the accusations and the House trial against Rangel. .Dates of a Scandal View Interactive .More photos and interactive graphics .The confrontation between Mr. Rangel and his accusers came after a two-year probe that cost $2 million in legal bills for the 80-year-old lawmaker who has represented New York's Harlem neighborhood for the past 40 years. Much of the money was spent while Mr. Rangel was still chairman of the powerful tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, a position he fought to hold but relinquished under pressure in March. His high-powered legal team left the case last month after Mr. Rangel said he had exhausted the campaign funds he used to pay their bills. As a member of Congress, he is neither entitled nor allowed to accept free legal representation. Within the first minutes of Monday's hearing, the New York lawmaker seized the spotlight. With his wife sitting crying in the audience, Mr. Rangel pleaded for more time to get a lawyer. View Full Image AFP/Getty Images U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) spoke during a House Standards of Official Conduct (Ethics) Committee hearing Monday. ."I am being denied the right to have a lawyer right now because I don't have the opportunity to have a legal defense fund set up," he said. "I truly believe I am not being treated fairly.'' He then walked out. After quickly convening behind closed doors, Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.) and the other panel members chose to continue without him. "He has indicated that he does not intend to participate, and it is his right not to participate,'' said Ms. Lofgren. Hours later, she emerged again to say the lawmakers had found the facts alleged by investigators are true. If the eight panel members find Mr. Rangel guilty of breaking ethics rules, the full 10-member ethics panel will make a recommendation on punishment that would then be voted on by the full House. Mr. Rangel faces 13 counts of violating House rules, including failing to report assets, failing to pay taxes on rental income from a vacation property and misusing congressional stationery to try to raise money for a college center named in his honor. A House ethics panel is deciding whether Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel is guilty of violating House ethics rules after the eight lawmakers decided to accept as fact the entire prosecution's case against him. Jerry Seib discusses. .The last time the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct held such hearings was in 2002 against then-Rep. James Traficant (D., Ohio), but the committee in that case was simply following investigative work done by federal prosecutors. Mr. Rangel's case marks the first time the House ethics committee has independently investigated and convened hearings on lawmaker misconduct since 1987. The senior Republican on the committee, Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, called the Rangel hearing "an important day, both for Mr. Rangel, for this committee, for the Congress, but most importantly for the American people.'' Mr. Rangel did find some sympathy from the committee over the departure of his lawyers last month. "It's an astonishing display of professional irresponsibility, for a law firm to take so much money to represent an individual then withdraw," said Rep. Peter Welch (D., Vt.). The law firm that had represented Mr. Rangel, Zuckerman Spaeder, said in a statement that it had been "a privilege'' to represent him, adding the lawyers "did not seek to terminate the relationship and explored every alternative to remain as his counsel consistent with House ethics rules prohibiting members from accepting pro bono legal services.'' After Mr. Rangel left the hearing, Blake Chisam, the committee lawyer acting as a prosecutor in the case, outlined the evidence against the congressman, facing an empty defense table. Under questioning from lawmakers, Mr. Chisam said he didn't believe Mr. Rangel's actions were corrupt, but were sloppy and in violation of House ethics rules. The formal charges were filed against Mr. Rangel in July, prompting some fellow Democrats to urge him to leave Congress. The accusations aren't viewed by investigators as corruption or profiting from his position, but rather a failure to follow the rules of ethical conduct and accurately report his finances as required. Thus, Mr. Rangel is unlikely to face expulsion from the House even with a finding of guilt; the most likely punishment would be a public reprimand. Mr. Rangel was not in the hearing room when the panel announced its decision. Instead, he said, he watched the proceedings on television in his office. The case has been a source of embarrassment for Democrats who took control of the House in 2007 pledging to run the most ethical Congress in history. Write to Devlin Barrett at devlin.barrett@wsj.com

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (47226)	11/15/2010 10:45:54 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	3 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 71588

Tea Party Wins GOP Vow to Ban Earmarks In a swift victory for tea-party activists, the Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell, agreed to a plan to ban GOP members from proposing earmarks for spending bills.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (47226)	11/17/2010 7:36:19 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Not since Jimmy Carter handed the office to Ronald Reagan — arguably not since Herbert Hoover yielded to Franklin Roosevelt — had a president of one party bequeathed a successor from another party so utter an economic disaster as George W. Bush bequeathed to Barack Obama. I have to give Frum props for including the Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan example. Too many just jump right to the Hoover/Roosevelt depression when the reality of the recent recession, while different in its particulars from either of its predecessors was on a scale far closer to the early 80s, argubably not as bad as the early 80s, which had higher peak unemployment, a much higher "misery index", and a larger economic contraction if you count both parts of the double dip recession back then, the short 1980 recession, combined with the later and steeper 1981-82 recession. The recent recession was longer, than either part of the double dip, but shorter than both dips together, of course that assumes we don't go in to a double dip now. Too often, conservatives dupe themselves. Too often everyone dupes themselves. Conservatives are not exempt but they are not particular standouts on this either. But it’s not always true that what’s good for Goldman Sachs is good for the economy, or vice versa. Goldman Sachs is not special in that regard. Its also not always true that what's good for GM, or IBM, or Microsoft, or GE, or some collection of particular small or medium sized businesses, is good for the economy. The economy is more important than the budget. True but budget deficits of ten percent of GDP are hardly very solid things for the economy even in the relatively short term. Reagan's deficit where about half as big by this measure (and much smaller by other measures, but real dollars is a less important measure, and nominal dollars far less important, even though its the normal headline figure that you see most often). They are rejecting the teachings of Milton Friedman, who emphasized the value of automatic stabilizers fully as much as John Maynard Keynes ever did. Automatic stabilizers in general terms are a net benefit (despite the real negatives that do come with them), but they are becoming too large to be affordable. To much of a good thing can become a bad thing. And its not just an issue of size. Just because a program acts as an automatic stablizer, doesn't mean that its a good program. Fiscal stimulus on top of the automatic stabilizers is of more questionable benefit, and makes the fiscal situation even worse. So much so that you might describe contemporary American politics as a class struggle between those with more education than money against those with more money than education: Jon Stewart’s America versus Bill O’Reilly’s, Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin. Those might be poor examples. Is O'Reilly less educated than Stewart? It might be by some measures but if so its not obvious. Obama had more money than Palin during the campaign when they battled each other, and while Palin's income has gone up a lot since, I'm not sure that the Palin's even now have more wealth than the Obamas (esp. not if you include the value of all the perks he gets as president). Its not the rich vs. the non-rich, or the rich vs. the educated. Its more those with entrenched political power (Democrats, the pork-loving Republicans, politically connected unions and businesses, etc.), vs those outside of that group, some of whom are rich (but mostly not "filthy rich"), most of whom are middle class (but many of them have aspirations for more). With the Democrats as the incumbents and the anti-incumbent attitude, a number of pork-loving Republicans benefits, but others took a fall in the primaries, and important issue is how much their replacement get seduced by this pork (broadly defined, including all sorts of perks of power and special benefits doled out by those in power, not just earmarks). Non-Tea Party Americans may marvel that any group can think of itself as egalitarian when its main political goals are to cut off government assistance to the poorest and reduce taxes for the richest. Opposing taking from some, even those that are more wealthy, to give to others, even those who are relatively poor, isn't exactly anti-egalitarian. Opposing taking from the majority (essentially net income tax payers) to give to all sorts of well-connected special interests many of whom are wealthier than the average tax payer, is egalitarian. The message we hear from some Republicans — “this is no time for compromise” — threatens to extend the failures of governance for at least two more years. These failures serve nobody’s interest, and the national interest least of all. Yes and no. Compared to achieving positive goals lack of much movement in any direction doesn't serve the national interest, but compared to more of what we've had recently a failure to do much of anything would be a large improvement.