Obama Is The MOST PROGRESSIVE President That We Can Get In Our Current Political System

[karynnj]

32. There are many politicians not owned by the corporations

In fact, I think that perception has been used to hurt the side that wants government to do positive things - rather than nothing. I am not naive and I am not saying that no politician has ever done something for the money he or his campaign can get, but, for the most part, that is not why people get into politics. Anyone with the skills needed to get elected to Congress - and even more so the Senate, could likely make more money in the private sector.

Recently, a major blast at the reputation of all legislators was the 60 Minutes Report that was based on Peter Schweitzer's book. From the excerpts I have seen it is the most puerile analysis I have ever seen. (ie Senators/legislators on any committee working on healthcare in 2003 or 2009, whose portofolio showed a stock purchase of any health care stock was called suspect - even the Democrats who fought the 2003 bill or the Republicans who fought the 2009 bill. The fact is it was not "secret" that these bills were being worked on - and in all of 2009, there was no certainty it would pass - especially when you consider that in January 2010, Rahm Emmanuel was speaking of abandoning the comprehensive bill to ensure they passed something. He ignored whether or not the transactions occurred in trusts which the legislators did not control. Also ignored is that most stocks bought in 2003 increased in value by the end of 2004 - the Dow Jones soared too - and from the market bottom in March 2009, the DJ went up 59% by April 2010 - and it wasn't because HCR secretly passed. For that matter, had they bought Tiffany in March, 2009 by April 2010, it would have been up 250%. )

There were hundreds (or maybe thousands) of stories on that - most quoting the book that legislators did significantly better than hedgefund managers. All based on just those cheery picked transactions. Yet recently, there was an analysis of ALL the listed transactions the legislators made - and - the result is that in total, they should have stayed with a passive index fund. http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-14/bostonglobe/30516909_1_insider-suspicious-trades-portfolio This analysis is far more dependable than the Schweitzer junk analysis, but the only place I saw this was the Boston Globe.

Schweitzer was the national security adviser to Sarah Palin, who referred to him as "one of her pack" in her fight against the corrupt culture of DC. That defines his agenda. Then there is 60 minutes. Here, they are handed an explosive story that also fits the profile of the powerful cheating. They really should have had someone spend time reading it and error checking. They would have found - that even though there COULD be a problem - this book is so poorly done that they should not give it any of their well earned credibility. (I mean when you attack Democrats on HELP and Finance for "writing the 2003 drug bill and referring to some as chairs of those committees - there is a problem. It was a Republican bill and Republicans controlled the Senate and the timing is close enough that it was a blatant error.)