host

The currrent system produces winning candidates who are either financed by business interests or issue driven organizations, in exchange for the politician's support of legislation intended to benefit the contributors, usually at the expense of the larger public interest, or.......................

self financed. These candidates overcome the financial bar to entry into national legislative or executive branch politics by
risking their own capital to gain office. I assume that the money component of campaigning, and the "attack dog" strategy that has achieved startling successful results, of late, will not soon go away. Realistically, we are left to observe the rare candidate who achieves office without selling out to special interests, and does not seem motivated to pursue a political agenda tied to the business interests that generated his personal fortune.

I see such a man, (or hope I do....) today, in the senate. I assume, Halx, that the reform that you are seeking would yield leaders with agendas that work for the broadest interests of the public. Since politics, when distilled, is the art of redistributing wealth and power, one group or interest's gain almost always comes at the expense of another group's holdings. The problem today is the exclusion of the interest of the greater public at the hands of well financed special interests.

The "citizen senator" who has attracted my attention has done the following:

1.)Financed his own senate campaign with $60 million to run successfully for his seat in the most costly media market in the U.S., from his self made fortune estimated at $400 million.

2.)Although his personal fortune was achieved via his career in financial services, i.e. the management of the wealth of other high net worth individuals, as a former co-chairman, of what was, ten years ago, the largest privately held Wall St. investment banking firm, he supports a political agenda today that seems the opposite of that of the financial services sector:
a.)<a href="http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/11094822.htm">"Unfortunately, this bill fails to provide a fair and balanced approach to bankruptcy reform - it favors
creditors, </a>such as credit card companies and banks, over the needs of individuals,"

b.)<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020304&c=3&s=greider20020221">Oh, I think there's a whole issue on corporate governance. I'm a big believer that pension reform and accounting reform and corporate governance are places where we should go to look for changes that at least </a>in my view are fundamentally revealed by Enron, certainly Waste Management, Global Crossing, the corporate restatements. Because I think on pension issues, we haven't really put together a structure with sensible form on defined contribution plans [401ks]. The lock- down period which the President makes a big deal out of is a tiny piece of what the real problem is. Flexibility is a real issue. Rules of locking people up till they're 50 years old, when they've been there 10 or 15 years, is crazy--people can't adjust their portfolios. So those are the kind of things that should be done. We need other responsible fiduciary elements. Diversification is the most important. You also need liabilities for people who do have lock-down. There is a whole series of questions that are important now. I think what you're talking about with respect to whether there's a proper investment plan--I don't think they're irrelevant issues but I think they're a little bit below these other issues. I think we need real reform with regard to analysts at investment banks. What's the case? That 17 investment firms were still recommending an Enron buy on December 2?

Q: Including Goldman Sachs, I think.

I'm sure my former colleagues at Goldman are not happy with this. It's an uncomfortable situation when analysts are seemingly so conflicted by the relationships or positions. But Goldman Sachs at this stage, in the last five years, has not had much of any relationship with Enron so the analysts was operating on whatever basis. We ended up having difficulty with how people did business with each other. But I think that the idea that analysts could ever be given a percentage of the profits on the investment banking transactions that are company covered is mind-boggling actually to those of us who didn't follow that practice. Now, when I say that, we don't want to get into holier-than-thou, because analysts that covered companies and have great relationships with those companies tend to see business flow to particular firms, even though it was informal and not direct.

c.)<a href="http://corzine.senate.gov/priorities/usanetworksocsec.pdf">Dear President Bush:

Without delay or ambiguity, I urge you to repudiate the tactics employed by USA Next and to restore civility and honor to the on-going Social Security dialogue................</a>

......Mr. President, Social Security is a time-honored and time-tested safety net for millions for American families. Talks of altering this safety net should only follow respectable, honorable dialogue between all interested parties – particularly, the American people. Deploying mercenaries to smear opponents of your plan is beneath the dignity of the American people and not an honorable tactic during this American conversation.

Just this week, USA Next used my state’s largest newspaper to launch a broadside against the AARP, charging the organization with “lying to the public” on the issue of Social Security. Worse yet is USA Next’s incendiary advertisement which implies that the AARP’s agenda includes denouncing American servicemen and women and supporting gay marriage. The motive for USA Next’s irresponsible use of such hot button issues is not difficult to decipher – if you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger – no matter how dishonest and off base those attacks become.

Mr. President, I need not remind you that the AARP's support of your prescription drug plan was crucial to its passage. While I disagreed with your plan and the AARP's decision to endorse it, you found the AARP to be an honorable organization and welcomed their support. While our views on Social Security differ, I hope you will join me in standing with the AARP and denouncing USA Next's incendiary tactics.

d.)<a href="http://www.courierpostonline.com/news/southjersey/m041505j.htm">(the senator) said the Republican president's proposal to create individual accounts, through which younger workers could invest a portion of their Social Security taxes, would cause financial burdens for future senior citizens and state governments.</a>

He noted that New Jersey faces a $4 billion budget deficit.

"I think we're left with a really Hobson's choice of cutting their standard of living or raising taxes to provide for seniors who would be falling back into poverty," said (the senator), who is running for governor.

Bush wants to create "personal retirement accounts" and to promote that concept, the administration's "60 Stops in 60 Days" tour will bring Cheney to Burlington County College.

"What do we mean by personal retirement account?" Cheney said at a stop last month. "Well, we mean an account that has real assets in it, an account that would be similar to the thrift savings plans that . . . are available now for members of Congress and federal employees."

People born after 1950 would be allowed to invest 4 percent of their earnings in "conservatively designed funds, broad-based, based on mixes of stocks and bonds or U.S. Treasury securities," he said.

(The senator) cited a report by a liberal policy group that said diverting money from Social Security to personal accounts would increase by 120,000 the number of New Jersey seniors living in poverty and put pressure on the state budget to help them.
****************************************************

I am encouraged by the indications that this senator bought his senate seat with money that he gained in an industry that he now seems to be working against the interests of, for the benefit of the people who he represents in Washington. Is this not the result that you are wishing for, or a positive start in that direction ?