How Congress Occupied Wall Street

How Congress Occupied Wall Street

Sarah Palin
Wall Street Journal
Nov. 18, 2011

Mark Twain famously wrote, "There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." Peter Schweizer's new book, "Throw Them All Out," reveals this permanent political class in all its arrogant glory. (Full disclosure: Mr. Schweizer is employed by my political action committee as a foreign-policy adviser.)

Mr. Schweizer answers the questions so many of us have asked. I addressed this in a speech in Iowa last Labor Day weekend. How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians' stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers'? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.

The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad, and Mr. Schweizer details the most lucrative methods: accepting sweetheart gifts of IPO stock from companies seeking to influence legislation, practicing insider trading with nonpublic government information, earmarking projects that benefit personal real estate holdings, and even subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry. The list goes on and on, and it's sickening.

Astonishingly, none of this is technically illegal, at least not for Congress. Members of Congress exempt themselves from the laws they apply to the rest of us. That includes laws that protect whistleblowers (nothing prevents members of Congress from retaliating against staffers who shine light on corruption) and Freedom of Information Act requests (it's easier to get classified documents from the CIA than from a congressional office).

The corruption isn't confined to one political party or just a few bad apples. It's an endemic problem encompassing leadership on both sides of the aisle. It's an entire system of public servants feathering their own nests.

None of this surprises me. I've been fighting this type of corruption and cronyism my entire political career. For years Alaskans suspected that our lawmakers and state administrators were in the pockets of the big oil companies to the detriment of ordinary Alaskans. We knew we were being taken for a ride, but it took FBI wiretaps to finally capture lawmakers in the act of selling their votes. In the wake of politicos being carted off to prison, my administration enacted reforms based on transparency and accountability to prevent this from happening again.

We were successful because we had the righteous indignation of Alaskan citizens on our side. Our good ol' boy political class in Juneau was definitely not with us. Business was good for them, so why would they want to end "business as usual"?

The moment you threaten to strip politicians of their legal graft, they'll moan that they can't govern effectively without it. Perhaps they'll gravitate toward reform, but often their idea of reform is to limit the right of "We the people" to exercise our freedom of speech in the political process.

I've learned from local, state and national political experience that the only solution to entrenched corruption is sudden and relentless reform. Sudden because our permanent political class is adept at changing the subject to divert the public's attention—and we can no longer afford to be indifferent to this system of graft when our country is going bankrupt. Reform must be relentless because fighting corruption is like a game of whack-a-mole. You knock it down in one area only to see it pop up in another.

What are the solutions? We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.

We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren't really blind because they're managed by family members or friends.)

No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.

This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party's mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been "Occupying Wall Street" long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.

Ms. Palin, a former governor of Alaska, was the Republican nominee for vice president in 2008.

This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party's mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been "Occupying Wall Street" long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.

Couldn't have said it better. Too bad the folks at OWS can't get past this.

TexasBlue wrote:

This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party's mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been "Occupying Wall Street" long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.

Couldn't have said it better. Too bad the folks at OWS can't get past this.

Yeah, she did a nice piece right here, I didn't know she wrote in the WSJ, of course the lefties would say it was a ghost writer who wrote this or some shit if you posted this on SP.

Thank you, Sarah.

Again, I do wish you were in the race.

The GOP spent $50.000 at ONE store for her and her family during the last Presidential campaign..... she's not modest whatsoever. She's also not an average "hockey mom" like she always tries to portray....

Big difference between that and getting stuff as a member of congress (ie; favors).

It's apparent that you didn't even read the article or you would've sided with her piece. Anyone would've sided with this op-ed, no matter political leanings.

I was referring to the second paragraph...

And I agree with what she's saying, I just don't think she has a right to criticize other politicians for such things...

The GOP spent $50.000 at ONE store for her and her family during the last Presidential campaign..... she's not modest whatsoever. She's also not an average "hockey mom" like she always tries to portray....

* * *

[...] I agree with what she's saying, I just don't think she has a right to criticize other politicians for such things...

'Average' is relative to whatever one perceives to be average. For instance, does one's income or occupation immediately cancel out the raising of kids, shopping for groceries, shoveling snow, paying insurance premiums and attending high school events? It's a question we answer on an individual level because these kinds of averages are usually decided based on our personal political slant and/or our own situation when held alongside.

As for the 50k? I recall the media dance that followed but never really gave it a lot of thought. The party paid a lot of money to spruce her up for the campaign... which means they were they ones to account for the expense. So far as I am aware, no public tax dollars were used.

Finally, the 'right' to criticize is like the old, 'He who is without sin cast the first stone'. It can be applied to both the criticizing... as well as the criticizing of the criticizer, lol.

As a guess, I'd say your beef with Palin is based on her politics... which is okay because what I like about her is for the same reason. From there, all points become pointless. We agree that we disagree.

Well it is save to say that no matter what you see as average, the governor of a state is never average, as there is only one governor. What I meant by average is that she tries to play the role of the everyday, middle class hockey mom... which she is clearly not. She makes too much money to be considered middle class.

Yeah, the Party paid for it, but after the campaign it turned out that she spent a little more than what was appropriate.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well it is save to say that no matter what you see as average, the governor of a state is never average, as there is only one governor. What I meant by average is that she tries to play the role of the everyday, middle class hockey mom... which she is clearly not. She makes too much money to be considered middle class.

Yeah, the Party paid for it, but after the campaign it turned out that she spent a little more than what was appropriate.

If Palin was rich, she could have paid off all of those stupid ethics complaints that were filed against her for political reasons. Nobody on the left complains when Michelle Obama spent tax payer money to go on her trip to Spain bringing her friends and family along and all of the other expensive vacations to Martha's Vineyard that her and her family go on.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well it is save to say that no matter what you see as average, the governor of a state is never average, as there is only one governor. What I meant by average is that she tries to play the role of the everyday, middle class hockey mom... which she is clearly not. She makes too much money to be considered middle class.

Yeah, the Party paid for it, but after the campaign it turned out that she spent a little more than what was appropriate.

Nobody said she was middle class except you. But then by the same token, she's supposedly fighting for the middle class. But that's what the American left says they're doing. Even while Dems ruled the WH and the House for over 30+ years, the people they claim to fight for are still the same as they were back then.

Back on topic...... What she spent or the GOP spent is none of my business and long as they did it within the party campaign funds.

How about them $400 haircuts by John Edwards?

Mark85la wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well it is save to say that no matter what you see as average, the governor of a state is never average, as there is only one governor. What I meant by average is that she tries to play the role of the everyday, middle class hockey mom... which she is clearly not. She makes too much money to be considered middle class.

Yeah, the Party paid for it, but after the campaign it turned out that she spent a little more than what was appropriate.

If Palin was rich, she could have paid off all of those stupid ethics complaints that were filed against her for political reasons. Nobody on the left complains when Michelle Obama spent tax payer money to go on her trip to Spain bringing her friends and family along and all of the other expensive vacations to Martha's Vineyard that her and her family go on.

Do you have any proof that those trips are paid for by Tax Payer money? THe President even gets presented with a grocery bill after he leaves office, I doubt that those trips were paid for by the people...

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well it is save to say that no matter what you see as average, the governor of a state is never average, as there is only one governor. What I meant by average is that she tries to play the role of the everyday, middle class hockey mom... which she is clearly not. She makes too much money to be considered middle class.

Yeah, the Party paid for it, but after the campaign it turned out that she spent a little more than what was appropriate.

Nobody said she was middle class except you. But then by the same token, she's supposedly fighting for the middle class. But that's what the American left says they're doing. Even while Dems ruled the WH and the House for over 30+ years, the people they claim to fight for are still the same as they were back then.

Back on topic...... What she spent or the GOP spent is none of my business and long as they did it within the party campaign funds.

How about them $400 haircuts by John Edwards?

You think Palin is fighting for the Middle Class? Do you also think that Regaens economics benefitted the middle class?

$400 hair cuts are ridiculous and should not be paid for by tax money.

If all that truly is covered by tax payer money, then that's an outrage!

BubbleBliss wrote:Do you have any proof that those trips are paid for by Tax Payer money? THe President even gets presented with a grocery bill after he leaves office, I doubt that those trips were paid for by the people...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2011/1369documents.pdf
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2011/1369secondproduction.pdf

Are you really that naive? The First Lady's strips are taxpayer expenses. Always!

BubbleBliss wrote:You think Palin is fighting for the Middle Class? Do you also think that Regaens economics benefitted the middle class?

$400 hair cuts are ridiculous and should not be paid for by tax money.

I don't know. I haven't asked her. The Democrats sure aren't fighting for the middle class. And Reagan's policies put more people to work in his first 4 years than Obama has managed in 3.

Regaen's policies resulted in the stagnation of wages and all the benefits of economic growth landing in the pockets of the top 1% of Americans. That's a fact!

BubbleBliss wrote:
Regaen's policies resulted in the stagnation of wages and all the benefits of economic growth landing in the pockets of the top 1% of Americans. That's a fact!

This from a kid who wasn't even around back then much less lived during it. Reagan lowered the unemployment rate from 10.8% to 7.2% in two years and had a GDP growth rate of 7.1%, that's why he won 49 states in 1984. His policies also created the biggest expansion of the economy in our history. Obama has the unemployment rate static after three years and a sorry GDP growth rate of 1.9%. Reagan also had the added burden of double digit inflation and interest rates.

So can I say that you have no clue about European politics because you've never lived under a European government?
GDP has nothing to do with wages or how evenly the money earned was stratified on the income ladder. GDP is actually just the sum of all money earned... no matter who earned. So that doesn't refute any of the points I made in my post.

BubbleBliss wrote:So can I say that you have no clue about European politics because you've never lived under a European government?

You sure can and you'd be right about that. As you may have noticed, I've never been one to say much about how Europe does it's business.

BubbleBliss wrote:GDP has nothing to do with wages or how evenly the money earned was stratified on the income ladder. GDP is actually just the sum of all money earned... no matter who earned. So that doesn't refute any of the points I made in my post.

From November 1982 to November 1989, 18.7 million new jobs were created. As total employment grew to 119.5 million, the rate of unemployment fell to slightly over 5 percent, the lowest level in 15 years. Under Reagan, top personal income tax rates were lowered from 70 percent to 28 percent. An economic boomer right there!

And here's something to refute your words; http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record

So by that logic, you have no right to discuss anything you haven't personally experienced? That's all of history, right there.. are you sure about that?

Again, that has nothing to do with the fact that economic growth went straight to the top 1% of Americans.

The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.

The Budget deficit also increase heavily during Regaen's administration.

BubbleBliss wrote:
So by that logic, you have no right to discuss anything you haven't personally experienced? That's all of history, right there.. are you sure about that?

Again, that has nothing to do with the fact that economic growth went straight to the top 1% of Americans.

The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.

The Budget deficit also increase heavily during Regaen's administration.

No, you can discuss it. But I lived during this period as an "uneducated" person without a college degree. My pay kept increasing throughout this period and I made tons of money. My pay stubs during those years showed increases in my yearly wages year after year. Funny how that happened.




It also bears to point out that Reagan had a Democrat controlled House of Representatives for his whole 8 years. He had Dem control of the Senate for 2 of those 8. But the House (as I've said before in other posts) are the body that appropriates spending. Ie; The House controls ALL spending.There's many ways to maneuver around certain things. I read his autobiography (an Xmas Gift) and he pointed out that you have to compromise on certain issues when dealing with the other party. This is where he had to do X, Y and Z on different issues. He caved on some issues and didn't on others.



Middle class tax squeeze



And you said that the economic growth went to the top 1% of the population. Bullshit. In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 % of all income taxes. The top 5 % paid 43 %; and the bottom 50 % paid only 5 %. To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.

The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 % rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 % in 1981 to 28 % in 1988.

Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 % fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 % for the top 20 % of income earners, it fell by 44 % for the second-highest quintile, 46 % for the middle quintile, 64 % for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 % for the bottom quintile.

Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record

William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore
October 22, 1996

Bob Dole's proposal for a 15 percent income tax cut has reignited the long-standing debate about the economic impact of Reaganomics in the 1980s. This study assesses the Reagan supply-side policies by comparing the nation's economic performance in the Reagan years (1981-89) with its performance in the immediately preceding Ford-Carter years (1974-81) and in the Bush-Clinton years that followed (1989-95).

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

* Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

* Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

* Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

* The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

This study also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.

William A. Niskanen is chairman and Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute

I fail to see what the fact that the economic growth went straight to the top has to do with taxes...

Real Median Family income is also not a good indicator of economic growth, because it only evenly divides all incomes into 2 classes. That results in the fact that the higher the highest income, the higher the median income.... now matter how low the lowest income.

There is also no mention of the increased trade deficit and federal debt during Reagan's years.

Read: http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Budget_+_Economy.htm

TexasBlue wrote:Big difference between that and getting stuff as a member of congress (ie; favors).

It's apparent that you didn't even read the article or you would've sided with her piece. Anyone would've sided with this op-ed, no matter political leanings.

It's hypocritical, at best. Palin and her unethical behavior as governor leaves her NO room to talk about what needs to be done to get rid of corruption in politics.

Code:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/palin-guilty-of-major-eth_b_624863.html

Nearly a year after she quit her governorship of Alaska, Sarah Palin was found guilty today of another breach of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act involving her so-called Alaska Fund Trust (AFT), which she established as a private "legal defense fund" while governor.

Timothy Petumenos, independent counsel for the Alaska Personnel Board (and ironically, the same independent counsel who issued the Troopergate findings nearly two years ago while Palin was the GOP vice-presidential nominee), presented the state's Findings, Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement this afternoon from the perfectly named Adventure Room of the Captain Cook Hotel in downtown Anchorage.

In what is an extremely detailed finding, Petumenos ruled that even though Palin assigned the research of forming the fund to her former spokesperson Meghan Stapleton and even though Palin relied on extensive outside legal counsel, that "the Trust itself, as ultimately conceived, violates the Ethics Act."
2010-06-24-PH2010052504727.jpg


The finding is a stinging rebuke to Palin, who must now return more than $386,000 in contributions to the AFT.

It's hard to believe someone with such an horrific history of her unethical behavior in Political office.

AND she QUIT. Halfway through. At least those serving as SERVING.