Other Stuff

Back in 2004, a study* considered by academics to be the baseline work in the field was published by researchers at four universities. These researchers, Alan Ziobrowski of Georgia State among them, found that during the boom years of 1993-‘98, a majority of US senators were trading stocks — and they were beating the market by 12 percentage points a year on average. Corporate insiders, on the other hand, only beat the market by 5 percent, and typical households underperformed by 1.4 percent. Interestingly, there were no differences found between Democrats and Republicans. (See Gail Chaddock’s report on the study in the Christian Science Monitor.)

12 percent is a statistically shocking number, way beyond luck or just being smart. Nobody does that well. Not George Soros. Not Warren Buffett.

The 2004 study sent chills through Congress as members realized they were under scrutiny. And yet legislators have gone right on lining their pockets using insider information. In the executive branch, you’re expected to divest yourself of assets when you take office or put your investments into what are known as “blind trusts.” But legislators consider inside dealmaking their divine right. They typically go right on playing the stock market and often neglect to bow out when they have a financial interest in an issue they are legislating. Disclosure statements they have to release are pretty much a joke – they’re incomplete, and they are difficult and expensive for the public to obtain. A reporter requesting documents has to disclose his or her information in the request, which is then sent straight to the member, a move which can be intimidating to those asking questions.

cultureofresistance:

Further evidence that we urgently need to fight back. 

From the article:

Woody Guthrie put it best when he sang, “This land is your land.” Until, that is, someone steals it from you. And from the redwood forests to the New York island, that’s exactly what could happen if we don’t stop an extreme bill in Congress that would essentially turn over 50 million acres of publicly owned wildlands to oil, gas, and mining companies for drilling, mining, logging, road construction, and other destructive development.

Wilderness that represents the historical, geological, and ecological diversity of the United States, from iconic red rock canyons in Utah to ancient temperate rainforests in Alaska to scenic mountains in New Mexico, could be lost forever. Here’s a slideshow of just some of the places at risk.

Introduced by Rep. Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, this bill (H.R. 1581) would eliminate protection for wilderness study areas and Forest Service roadless areas — exactly the kind of healthy, undisturbed lands that provide and safeguard clean air and water resources, supply habitat for plants and animals, and offer Americans a place to get outdoors and kayak, camp, fish, or hike. That’s one reason why people in the outdoor recreation industry — which, by the way, supports nearly 6.5 million jobs and contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy — are among the biggest opponents of this public lands giveaway.

I don’t get really angry all that often, but this kind of shit really makes me angry. Not only is it totally wrong to give natural resources to the big corporations. Why don’t these idiots understand that this land is not only a national treasure and a place of joy and hope, it is part of our material support system? Humans cannot exist independently of the world around us, we are a part of the environment.

(Source: speakerforthetrees)

Michael Tomasky does an interesting analysis of the congressional support for Bush vs Obama. He discusses a number of high profile votes and crunches the numbers, coming up with this:

Here’s how it all adds up:

Average Democratic Senate support for Bush: 45.5 percent.
Average Democratic House support for Bush: 36.8 percent.
Average combined Democratic support for Bush: 41.1 percent.
Average Republican Senate support for Obama: 8.8 percent.
Average Republican House support for Obama: 2.7 percent.
Average combined Republican support for Obama: 5.75 percent.

It’s fairly clear that the “both sides do it” trope is nonsense. And to my eyes, knowing the kind of centrist and right wing policies the president has proposed, it shows just how radical the Republicans have become. 

(Source: moorewr)

sarahlee310:

A recent report by the National Employment Law Project found a broad swath of job ads discriminating against unemployed people through language like “must be currently employed.” Now, a team of Huffington Post reporters has followed up, calling companies to ask about their discriminatory ads. The result? A whole lot of excuses. For the most part, employers blamed the ads on staffing firms. Meanwhile, some staffing firms stood by their ads:

“When my clients hire me, they want people who are motivated to go to work for the right reasons,” Seed said. “And if someone is currently employed in a good position, then their motivation to move to a different company would be that the company offers better benefits or offers more growth for advancement, or whatever. They’re not people who have to have a job, they’re people who want to move for the right reasons.”

That’s right, folks: Where this staffing agency VP is concerned, wanting a job is the wrong reason to apply for a job.

[…]

A bill making it illegal to refuse to consider job applicants because they are unemployed has been introduced in the House and Senate.

Doubt that the Eric Cantor segment of the House will let this through, but it would be worth a couple of minutes if everyone contacted their House rep and Senators to ask them to sponsor or at least vote for these bills.

Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) has introduced the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011 H.R.1113 in the House.  Only 52 cosponsors so far.

Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut with Senators Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Sherrod Brown of Ohio have introduce the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011 (S. 1471) which would bar employers and employment agencies from screening out or excluding job applicants solely because they are out of work.

Click here to go to Congress.org, find your congress members and send them a note.  Jot down the phone numbers for their local offices and put them in your Roledex/smart phone so you can give them a call on Monday - and anytime you have something to say to them about this or any other issue.

The ABA recommends that Congress amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act to enact a two-year ban on lobbyists engaging in fundraising efforts for members of Congress they lobby, and narrow the lobbying reporting threshold from 20 percent of one’s professional work to a “reasonable,” but unspecified percentage.

The ABA also recommends that “lobbying support” activities that are not currently matters of public record — strategizing and polling, for example — be disclosed.

“These are common sense solutions to restore the faith of citizens in their elected officials by bringing the business of government out into the sunlight,” said Trevor Potter, a former John McCain legal adviser and FEC commissioner who heads the Campaign Legal Center and served as co-chairman of the ABA’s lobbying regulation task force.

Other ABA recommendations include:

* Banning lobbyists from soliciting campaign contributions to the reelection campaign of a member of Congress “whom the lobbyist has been retained to lobby for an earmark or other narrow financial benefit.”

* Banning lobbyists from entering into a contingent fee contract with a client to “lobby for an earmark or other narrow financial benefit for that client.”

* Transferring Lobbying Disclosure Act enforcement to a “suitable administrative authority and empower that agency to utilize appropriate tools such as rulemaking, investigation, and imposition of civil or administrative penalties.”

(Source: sarahlee310)