Showing posts sorted by relevance for query chaney. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query chaney. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, 8 November 2006

Politicians with plenty of green... and red

Here is a list of the net worth from 2005 personal financial disclosure reports on members of Congress and the White House.

There is a point to be made that many on the top of this list are Democrats and some tilted to the left, but just because someone is rich does not make them bad. It is the self-serving wealthy elite, who only care about themselves and their family line, that are the 'bad' rich people. But, it is interesting data nonetheless.

Ranked number one is Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) at somewhere between US$219,098,029 and $234,549,004. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is ranked sixth ($78,150,022 to $101,579,003), but comes from one of the richest families in the history of the world. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), ranked fourth ($165,741,511 to $235,262,100), is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, who was previously the wife of the heir to the Heinz fortune, explaining his massive pocketbook. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is at eighth place ($62,090,106 to $199,687,011). Sen. John McCain is at 15, Vice President Dick Chaney is 18th, to-be Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is 22nd. The federal politician (i.e. House, Senate, Executive) with the lowest net worth is Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL), who is in the red at somewhere between $2,129,005 and -$7,335,000, ranked 559/559. Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay is also in debt, ranked 557, and well-known Democrat Sen. Joe Biden Jr (Del.) is at 551st place.

Some of these numbers seem a bid off though; what exactly does the net worth include or not include in this PFD report?

By May 15 of each year, Congress members and top officials in the executive branch must file forms covering the preceding calendar year that list their assets and liabilities, their income (excluding their government salaries, oddly), asset transactions, gifts they received and more. They need not list property unless it produces income (so their primary residence is generally not listed), but they must include the source of their spouse's income.
I want to find more sources (mostly just for the fun and disgust of seeing how much money US politicians have... and this is not even their many, many millions of campaign money!). I also don't know what forms of monetary value (net worth) the people (Open Secrets) who compiled this used. Also:
It is difficult to gauge what a lawmaker is worth based on what they file, however, because the disclosure forms do not require exact values. Instead, the lawmaker reports the range of value into which an asset, for example, falls. As the values increase, the ranges get broader.


Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
In Perspective

Monday, 6 November 2006

Who has the best election news site?

And the honour for best overall US election special report goes to...
As US midterm election day nears, there seems to be one website with arguable the best features and coverage, and it is not American. Yes, the BBC has gotten my vote for the best US election coverage and analysis. Anyone voting (or anyone who cares about current events or American government) should check out their BBC News in-depth report on the elections with a decent blog, a presentation of the issues, outcome predictions, and more great stuff for news and political junkies and voters alike.

David Corn wonders — if sarcastically (which is understandable) — whether Bush and Chaney actually want the GOP to loose, considering all the decisions they are making (e.g. holding on to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) that could easily negatively distort the Republican image in the potential voter's eye (like that was not already achieved).

See this post for my views on voting.

I hope to be blogging during the day tomorrow with tidbits of poll numbers, news wrap-ups, and commentary.

On a totally different matter, the song currently stuck in my head is The Killers' "Sam's Town", from their latest album of the same name. Maybe I will critique it... soon ;) I also want to see "Borat".

Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


In Perspective

Sunday, 5 November 2006

Case closed (?): Saddam Hussein sentenced

This relates to the situation in Iraq, and is a supplement to the "Iraq situation" series.
The biggest trial since Michael Jackson's, the trial of Saddam Hussein has finally come to a halt. In this trial, evidence was presented on charges of crimes against humanity.

Former --Iraqi (posts)-- leader Saddam Hussein (profile), along with two co-defendants, has been sentenced to death by hanging, the Baghdad-based Iraqi High Tribunal has ruled. Among those happy are US officials (US midterm elections are only a few days away), Shias (including predominately Shia nations such as Iran), Kurds, and others oppressed under the dictator's decades-long rule that ended with the United States-led coalition invasion in 2003. Those who are disgruntled by the death sentence include some human rights groups, people/bodies who/that recognize the human right to life (including the EU), supporters of Saddam and other — but not all — Sunnis.

This BBC article summarizes this latest event well:

The former Iraqi leader was convicted over the killing of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail following an assassination attempt on him in 1982.

US President George W Bush said the verdict was a "milestone" for Iraq but the EU urged it not to execute him.

The capture of Saddam, and this trial, really will ultimately not matter much in Iraq's history — as much (while the toppling of Saddam does certainly warrant the label of 'milestone') as President Bush and Neoconservatives would like to Americans to believe. However, the trial will probably play into the hands of the GOP. It is no coincidence that the ruling came today, two days before US midterms. United States Vice President Dick Chaney had recently — more than ever — pushed for a verdict soon before the elections, and he was not the only White House or Republican figure pushing for such a timely ruling on a matter that engrosses so many of the headlines and issue lists. The main question is whether this ruling will change the minds of potential voters or if voters will even see it as connected to the central issue of the war in Iraq.

This trial has been marred by many questionable judicial rulings and the alleged (when you have defense lawyers being killed all of the time and the justice system doing nothing about it, I would call it a questionable trial) stripping of basic trial rights. These characteristics of this roller coaster ride of a trial seem to have shown that a fair trial was not given to Saddam in a country that can only hesitantly be called a democracy (e.g. free press)

It is not like Saddam — and us watching on the sidelines — did not see this coming, it is the way the trial went about and the method of punishment that disgruntles me. Not only does the ruling of penalty of death almost certainly elevate sectarian violence, but the death penalty shows even more that Iraqi justice is questionable to human rights standards. Capital punishment is inhumane (and uncivilized), in face the US is the only truly developed country that still [readily] uses it. That eye for a an eye, tooth for a tooth mentality should be long gone... I mean, who wants to be blind and toothless?

See my views on withdraw of foreign troops from Iraq.

Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
In Perspective

Sunday, 10 December 2006

Yeah, the Democrats won, what's next?

Okay, the “thumpin’”, as President Bush put it, is over. The 2006 US midterm elections came to a close weeks ago, believe me, after all the blogging I did during the elections, I am relieved. Yeah, yeah, the Democrats took the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, by a landslide and a margin, but what’s next? Time to celebrate for moderates and liberals in the country? Time for change with the new majority Democrats? Not exactly.

The upcoming Democratic-majority US Congress may well be as bad as the current one. One positive: maybe the Dems will stick it to President Bush. One negative: do they have enough of a majority — even within their own party — to get anything done, let alone show the president that he is not the sovereign leader of America (or the world)? What about the fact that Bush has veto power? Just the squabbling — regardless of political affiliation — over Iraq, which, coupled with economy, was the main focus of the voters this past election, shows that the American people may be in for some ride these next years.

2006 elections
Even before the elections, political analysts were warning that even if the Dems won not all would be well. First of all, winning Democrats would most likely be unseating moderate Republicans, replacing them with slightly conservative to conservative Democrats, and, since they would not be able to get any moderate or liberal change done, the Democrats would be sad and worn out (as if they were not already). Meanwhile, the GOP would be ready to rise up to the Democrats. America [usually] loves an underdog, and keep in mind, a quarter of the electorate are evangelical or fundamentalist Christians — predominately in the South. The GOP would rally this massive demographic and stall any good chance of reform by creating a Democratic nightmare in 2008.

Gridlock, past and future
For the next two years, the Democratic Party will also have to deal with the fact that, even though they control the legislature, the executive still has its occupier — a Republican. I am speaking, of course, of President George W. Bush.

Back in 1992, a man from Arkansas, a man with a hope for America, was elected. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, served for eight years, many of which were probably not what he wished they were. In 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich and others launched what they coined as the “contract with America”, now referred to as the ‘Republican Revolution’ that resulted in massive seat gains for the GOP in both houses of Congress. This disabled Clinton from passing many of his sought-after laws. This also gave Americans a good taste of what political gridlock really is.

After the 110th United States Congress is sworn in next January, there will be at least two years of this gridlock. The differences between the Clinton era gridlock and the upcoming gridlock include the fact that back then the Democrats controlled the presidency, the Republicans the Congress, and it is now the other way around. The Dems also have less of a majority now then the Republicans had back in the ‘90s, and there is an ever-increasing conservative base ready to be fired up to come to the assistance of the Republican Party.

Pelosi and the Democratic roadmap
It will be interesting to see what the first woman Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, will bring. Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency (on the very off and unrealistic occasion that both President Bush and Vice President Chaney were to pass away in the next two years).

I am starting to feel a bit more optimistic about House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's vision for the Democratic Party and America as a whole. Pelosi’s "100-hour plan" — a spin-off of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “100-day plan” — looks especially promising, albeit quite ambitious. The plan, outlined in an often-cited Associated Press article, calls for ethics reforms (e.g. lobbying restrictions), implementation of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission (which the US government is still getting failing grades from), and an easier way for people to pay for college (e.g. interest rate cuts for student loans, educational initiatives). On Pelosi’s 100-hour to do list is also the passing of federally-funded stem cell research legislation, a raise of the minimum wage (from $5.15 to $7.25), the creation of a path to lower drug prices (which 85% of Americans back) [for those using Medicare], and other positive and progressive goals.

The ethics reforms are planned for the first day, in order to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation,” says Pelosi. During this entire plan, Pelosi has told AP she does not wish to further raise the national deficit that has ballooned under this president and this Congress; she says she is to institute a “pay-as-you-go” plan after her first 100 hours. The ultimate goal of this so-called 100-hour plan: "drain the swamp" of Republican rule the past 12 years in Congress, says Pelosi.

Political climate

The political winds have changed with the elections resulting in a Congressional majority for the Democrats, but it may be too insignificant, too late. Speaking of changes in the political winds, President Bush seems to want to be everyone's bipartisan friend again; a "united, not a divider", I doubt it. Much of the White House's political strategy depends on polarizing and dividing a nation, which is easy to do with (1) lack of government transparency and accountability more than ever (2) fear mongering in the "war on terrorism" (3) splitting a two-party nation so most vote for the GOP, using (1) and (2) as vote-gainers. This is all along with ideological and economic class partitioning, e.g. evangelicals/religious right, neoconservatives, 'safety moms', 'Wall Street types', and [other] special interests.

One ongoing question is whether the GOP can keep these conservatives and evangelicals on their side and can get them out to the polls, while staying congruent with respective ideologies of their various right-wing bases. This is where a two-party system with lax campaign finance regulation gets America: extreme polarized partisanship, elevated positions for special interest groups, and very limited choices for already-disgruntled constituents.

Representatives Pelosi (D-CA) and Boxer (D-CA) are two of the few quite liberal House members; Senators Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), and Kennedy (D-MA) are some of the few quite liberal Senate members (all are Democrats).

Dem options; in conclusion
The Democratic win in Congress is symbolic at best. There are, however, a handful of things that may be of good use to the Democrats and the nation. One of the best things that can come out of this exchange of power in Congress is that the rules former Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay set up making the House majority party so much more powerful could be used to the Democrat's advantage — and possibly the advantage of the nation. DeLay is now indicted on a slew of well-deserved charges, including those relating to campaign finance, and is being investigated for his roll in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals.

It ultimately comes down to this question: can the Democrats make a significant difference with their new majority in the US political scene? Unless the Democrats can rally support for the required two-thirds vote for a presidential veto override, I remain pessimistic. The Democrats may be or may not be lucky enough to get some of the forward-looking reforms passed by a majority of Congress anyway.

I am not too optimistic that the Dems will take full advantage of the majority power and the ability to investigate the White House by using Executive subpoena, but not to the extent that Executive-Legislature relations are harmed [too much]. One can only hope that the Dems will take this chance, grab it by its horns, and make the best of their around 30-seat advantage in the 435-seat House of Representatives. No matter what, there will be gridlock.

Meanwhile, the race for 2008 is already well underway. That’s politics.

The above is an essay outlining the Democratic victory and the issues surrounding it in this past midterm election in the United States. Some of the writing is extracted from previous posts I wrote on this blog.

Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 14 January 2007

Cheney warns Iran not to 'meddle' in Iraq

Vice President Dick Cheney’s (whose name I always seem to misspell) comments warning Iran not to “meddle” in Iraq can be taken as a realistic warning to Iran, Cheney wanting to keep Iraq stable in secure, but it is unlikely that is the only message given off — or intended to be perceived — in this latest string of accusations by the White House against Iran. His comments only show further the inability of the Bush administration to work with others, especially Iran and Syria. In building Middle East peace and stability — which this administration has only made less of —, working with countries actually in the Mid-East is a step forward. Namely, the decision to go to war with Iraq and the numerous policy blunders following the invasion have made the Middle East much worse, thanks to America.

BBC News:

US Vice President Dick Cheney has warned Iran not to interfere in Iraq.

His comments come after US forces detained several Iranians in northern Iraq on suspicion of aiding insurgents, accusations rejected by Tehran.

Mr Cheney is the latest member of the Bush administration to warn that the US will take steps against those trying to destabilise the situation in Iraq.

Washington has often accused Iran, or factions within the Iranian government, of aiding Shia groups in Iraq militarily and politically, but has offered little proof of Tehran's alleged activities.

President George W Bush on Wednesday warned that the US would take a tough stance towards Iran and Syria, which he accused of destabilising Iraq.

Mr Cheney told Fox News that Iran was "fishing in troubled waters" by aiding attacks on US forces and backing Shia militias involved in sectarian violence.

"I think the message that the president sent clearly is that we do not want (Iran) doing what they can to try to destabilise the situation inside Iraq.

"We think it's very important that they keep their folks at home" he said, adding that the Iranian threat was growing, multi-dimensional and of concern to everybody in the region.

Mr Cheney's television interview formed part of attempts by the Bush administration to promote the new drive to improve security in Iraq, which involves sending an extra 21,500 US troops.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates is in the UK for a brief visit, meeting Prime Minister Tony Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne.

"My first priority is making sure that we preserve the gains that we've achieved in Afghanistan and then talking about the way forward in Iraq," Mr Gates told reporters on his flight to London.

Earlier there were tough words from the US National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, who told ABC Television that the US had the authority to pursue Iranians in Iraq who "put our people at risk".

He did not elaborate on whether this could mean sending US troops across the border into Iran if necessary.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking before she embarked on her current Middle East tour, insisted that the US was not going to let either Iran or Syria continue activities that endangered American soldiers in Iraq.


The Iraq Study Group report — among other major proposed plans on Iraq — have all been shot down by the White House; the president seems to want to listen to himself and his closest advisors (i.e. the people who got the US into the Iraqi mess and have only exasperated it). The United States needs to work with Iran and Syria.

No matter how devious these two nations may seem, putting them on the “axis of evil” sure didn’t help things either. Neither have the suggestions of the use of military force against Iran and the lack of mention of continuing the Syria-Israel peace process talks over the Golan Heights (land belonging to Syria, occupied by Israel). I had delved into Syria, on multiple levels, in this post.

Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 8 November 2006

Will the Dems take advantage of their wins? Plus, Speaker Pelosi

One of the best things that can come out of this exchange of power in Congress is that the rules former Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay (now indicted on a slew of well-deserved charges) set up making the House majority party so much more powerful could be used to the Democrat's advantage — and possibly the advantage of the nation. I, however, am not too optimistic that the Dems will take full advantage of the majority power and the ability to investigate the White House by using Executive subpoena.

As I talked about in this post outlining various election and post-election scenarios, there will be party change — for better or for worse — almost certainly in the Republican and Democratic parties. One can only hope that the Dems will take this chance, grab it by its horns, and make the best of their around 30 seat advantage in the House of Representatives. One problem, the House is still moderately conservative since many moderate Republicans were beaten by Democrats and there are relatively few liberal Democrats (especially compared to the fact that there are 435 seats in that body of Congress).

It will be interesting to see what the first woman Speaker of the House will bring, Nancy Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency (on the very off and unrealistic occasion that both President Bush and Vice President Chaney were to pass away in the next two years). Pelosi and Boxer are two of the few liberal House members; Feingold, Feinstein, and Kennedy are two of the few liberal Senate members (all are Democrats).

I will be panning through the post-election dirt of commentary, sifting for a few pieces of gold today.

Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
In Perspective