Original Link: http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/493283.html
HELP: Defense team scrambling to sift through glut of legal material.
By ERIKA BOLSTAD ebolstad@adn.com
Lawyers for Sen. Ted Stevens, facing a stepped-up trial schedule, asked for help Wednesday trying to make sense of more than 67,000 documents and 2,800 audio files that could end up as evidence against him.
Prosecutors and lawyers for Stevens had a brief hearing Wednesday afternoon to decide how to handle discovery materials the Justice Department is handing over to Stevens' defense team. That includes recordings of roughly 10,000 phone conversations.
Stevens, 84, faces a Sept. 24 trial on charges he knowingly took home repairs and gifts worth more than $250,000 from the oil field services company, Veco Corp., and failed to report them on his annual U.S. Senate disclosure forms. Next week, a judge will decide whether to grant Stevens' request to move the trial to Alaska.
Wednesday, one of Stevens' lawyers, Alex Romain, asked the government to provide more detail about 67,000 pages of documents they scanned electronically and handed over to the defense. Some of the documents don't show where they begin and end, the defense complained. Those documents include bank records, spreadsheets and evidence that was seized from Veco Corp. computers.
Veco CEO Bill Allen and Richard Smith, a former vice president of community affairs and government relations for the now-defunct company, pleaded guilty in May 2007 to making more than $400,000 in corrupt payments to Alaska public officials.
Allen's testimony has been key in other convictions in the ongoing public corruption investigation, which to date has led to charges against 11 lawmakers, lobbyists and businessmen. Eight have been convicted or pleaded guilty. Three lawmakers, including Stevens, are awaiting trial.
Stevens' lawyers on Wednesday also asked to have better labeling on approximately 2,800 audio files, and the government agreed to be more forthcoming about who is calling or who is receiving the call, and when it was made. The audio files include wiretaps of both cell phones and land lines, Stevens' lawyers said Wednesday.
The defense also wants "surveillance logs" used by investigators to determine when calls began and ended and who is on the line.
With all the discovery materials, prosecutors said they would work with the defense to try to provide more information.
DISPUTES IN THE OPEN
The fast-moving trial calendar, sped up so Stevens could face a jury before the general election, means that some of the tug-of-war that generally goes on behind the scenes in criminal trials is playing out in the courtroom.
They're the kind of issues that could generally be handled over the telephone, said U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. In this case, though, Sullivan said he is anxious to be as transparent as possible because of the high-profile nature of the trial and the intense media scrutiny.
When necessary, Sullivan said, he'll hold a hearing, but the speed of the case means that lawyers need to settle some of their disputes over potential evidence among themselves.
"I'm going to make myself available," he warned the defense and prosecution, "but this is an issue best resolved by the attorneys."
If the case remains in Washington, D.C., jury selection is scheduled to begin Sept. 22, two days before the trial. Lawyers for both the defense and the prosecution have asked to submit questionnaires to the jurors, so they can review them and base their selection on their answers.
Questionnaires are rarely used, Sullivan said, so he asked the lawyers to make plans to photocopy 30 to 40 copies of the answers submitted by the estimated 150 jurors in the initial pool. The copies will be needed for members of the legal teams.
PRETRIAL PUBLICITY
Meanwhile, Stevens' lawyers submitted a second brief Wednesday in support of their motion to move the trial to Alaska. In it they argued that holding the trial in Alaska is "the only way to permit Senator Stevens even a minor role in his reelection campaign." Stevens, a Republican who has held his Senate seat since 1968 and has been campaigning in Alaska, has attended only one of his court appearances since his indictment.
His attorneys continued to argue that most of the witnesses are in Alaska, as is one of the pieces of evidence in the case: Stevens' home in Girdwood.
Stevens' lawyers also dismissed concerns by the Justice Department prosecutors that moving the trial to Alaska -- while the senator campaigns there -- could taint the jury pool.
Stevens has "received positive and negative publicity in Alaska and in the District of Columbia," his lawyers wrote. "This publicity can be expected to continue in both venues during the trial. In either venue, the effects of pre-trial publicity can be addressed during jury selection while the effects of publicity during trial can be addressed by appropriate instructions to the jury."
Prosecutors argued in a motion filed Monday that they believe the case is fundamentally a Washington, D.C.-based one, since the case centers on disclosure forms Stevens filed with the U.S. Senate.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Group says life not improving for tent camp Iraqis
Original Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/15/international/i063344D89.DTL
By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER, Associated Press Writer
The world's migration body said Friday that daily life has improved little for thousands of Iraqis living in tent camps, despite a slowdown in the number of people in Iraq being uprooted.
While most displaced Iraqis rent housing, live with relatives or squat in public buildings, less fortunate tent camp residents have no protection against extreme weather and poor access to medical care, education and other basic services.
In a new assessment, the International Organization for Migration found that those living in tent camps are "often the most vulnerable among a displaced population" of some 2.8 million in Iraq, said spokesman Jean-Philippe Chauzy.
He estimated their total number at a "few thousand," and said they were in "constant need of humanitarian assistance."
The 125-nation IOM is assisting displaced Iraqis with emergency food, water and household supplies, but overall help for those in tent camps remains inadequate, Chauzy said.
He described conditions in the al-Manathera camp in Najaf, the largest in Iraq, where "families who were evicted from public buildings live in cramped tents and caravans" with limited sanitation and drinking water.
A lack of family privacy — highly valued in Iraqi culture — combined with unemployment and overcrowding has caused "significant tensions" among the inhabitants, he said.
In the Qalawa camp in Sulaymaniyah, a group of displaced Iraqis that settled on a piece of open land two years ago still have no sanitation, electricity or toilets, Chauzy said.
They "live surrounded by garbage," he said. "As a result, cases of typhoid have recently been reported."
By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER, Associated Press Writer
The world's migration body said Friday that daily life has improved little for thousands of Iraqis living in tent camps, despite a slowdown in the number of people in Iraq being uprooted.
While most displaced Iraqis rent housing, live with relatives or squat in public buildings, less fortunate tent camp residents have no protection against extreme weather and poor access to medical care, education and other basic services.
In a new assessment, the International Organization for Migration found that those living in tent camps are "often the most vulnerable among a displaced population" of some 2.8 million in Iraq, said spokesman Jean-Philippe Chauzy.
He estimated their total number at a "few thousand," and said they were in "constant need of humanitarian assistance."
The 125-nation IOM is assisting displaced Iraqis with emergency food, water and household supplies, but overall help for those in tent camps remains inadequate, Chauzy said.
He described conditions in the al-Manathera camp in Najaf, the largest in Iraq, where "families who were evicted from public buildings live in cramped tents and caravans" with limited sanitation and drinking water.
A lack of family privacy — highly valued in Iraqi culture — combined with unemployment and overcrowding has caused "significant tensions" among the inhabitants, he said.
In the Qalawa camp in Sulaymaniyah, a group of displaced Iraqis that settled on a piece of open land two years ago still have no sanitation, electricity or toilets, Chauzy said.
They "live surrounded by garbage," he said. "As a result, cases of typhoid have recently been reported."
Friday, August 15, 2008
Greenspan in Bubble Denial
Original Link: http://www.minyanville.com/articles/Greenspan-fre-fnm-housing-bailout-real/index/a/18533/from/yahoo
By William Fleckenstein
In a Wall Street Journal article headlined "Greenspan Sees Bottom in Housing, Criticizes Bailout" former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said: "Home prices in the US are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009."
He did leave himself some wiggle room, as he also noted: "Prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
Of course, we shouldn't forget that this is the same man who in October of 2006 opined: "I think the worst of this [housing problem] may well be over."
As I noted in my book and often in this column, while Greenspan was in office, he went to great lengths to suggest that housing couldn't experience a bubble. And, as the Journal pointed out, he also tried to make the case in 2004 -- when many of us were already certain that a disastrous bubble was in full bloom -- that "a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity."
Which just illustrates my strongly held (and I believe well-documented) view that when it comes to matters of economics, he is utterly clueless -- and completely unable to learn from his mistakes.
However, what really sent my blood boiling was his criticism of the government bailouts of Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE). Now, you might wonder why I'd be angry that he said something that I agree with, especially: "They should have wiped out the shareholders." (He was referring to the Bear Stearns/Fannie/Freddie bailout.)
The reason I'm so angry is because of his logic -- which the Journal paraphrased as follows: "The Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt 'inevitable.'" (His adjective, my emphasis.)
Then Greenspan went on to tell the Journal: "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
Y'all Have to Reap What I Didn't Sow
The problem with that line of logic: He made the Bear Stearns bailout "inevitable" -- when he set the precedent of rescuing Wall Street during the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998. Of course, those actions led to the massive blow-off to the stock bubble, the response to which led to the real-estate bubble. Thus, had he not bailed out Wall Street, I don't believe we would ever have been in the situation where a Bear Stearns bailout would have been required, or even considered.
In sum, it was Greenspan who set this train wreck in motion, with his specific policies regarding Long-Term Capital, dramatically altering the financial landscape, via the "Greenspan put." Making matters worse, in the wake of that "warning shot" he advocated the deregulation of the financial system and championed securitization at every chance he got. While in charge, he never tried to put a stop to any dangerous policy, but rather pursued it aggressively.
By William Fleckenstein
In a Wall Street Journal article headlined "Greenspan Sees Bottom in Housing, Criticizes Bailout" former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said: "Home prices in the US are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009."
He did leave himself some wiggle room, as he also noted: "Prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
Of course, we shouldn't forget that this is the same man who in October of 2006 opined: "I think the worst of this [housing problem] may well be over."
As I noted in my book and often in this column, while Greenspan was in office, he went to great lengths to suggest that housing couldn't experience a bubble. And, as the Journal pointed out, he also tried to make the case in 2004 -- when many of us were already certain that a disastrous bubble was in full bloom -- that "a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity."
Which just illustrates my strongly held (and I believe well-documented) view that when it comes to matters of economics, he is utterly clueless -- and completely unable to learn from his mistakes.
However, what really sent my blood boiling was his criticism of the government bailouts of Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE). Now, you might wonder why I'd be angry that he said something that I agree with, especially: "They should have wiped out the shareholders." (He was referring to the Bear Stearns/Fannie/Freddie bailout.)
The reason I'm so angry is because of his logic -- which the Journal paraphrased as follows: "The Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt 'inevitable.'" (His adjective, my emphasis.)
Then Greenspan went on to tell the Journal: "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
Y'all Have to Reap What I Didn't Sow
The problem with that line of logic: He made the Bear Stearns bailout "inevitable" -- when he set the precedent of rescuing Wall Street during the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998. Of course, those actions led to the massive blow-off to the stock bubble, the response to which led to the real-estate bubble. Thus, had he not bailed out Wall Street, I don't believe we would ever have been in the situation where a Bear Stearns bailout would have been required, or even considered.
In sum, it was Greenspan who set this train wreck in motion, with his specific policies regarding Long-Term Capital, dramatically altering the financial landscape, via the "Greenspan put." Making matters worse, in the wake of that "warning shot" he advocated the deregulation of the financial system and championed securitization at every chance he got. While in charge, he never tried to put a stop to any dangerous policy, but rather pursued it aggressively.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Can It Happen Here?
Original Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/opinion/11krugman.html
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal Can Democrats deliver on that commitment? In principle, it should be easy. In practice, supporters of health care reform, myself included, will be hanging on by their fingernails until legislation is actually passed.
What’s easy about guaranteed health care for all? For one thing, we know that it’s economically feasible: every wealthy country except the United States already has some form of guaranteed health care. The hazards Americans treat as facts of life — the risk of losing your insurance, the risk that you won’t be able to afford necessary care, the chance that you’ll be financially ruined by medical costs — would be considered unthinkable in any other advanced nation.
The politics of guaranteed care are also easy, at least in one sense: if the Democrats do manage to establish a system of universal coverage, the nation will love it.
I know that’s not what everyone says; some pundits claim that the United States has a uniquely individualistic culture, and that Americans won’t accept any system that makes health care a collective responsibility. Those who say this, however, seem to forget that we already have a program — you may have heard of it — called Medicare. It’s a program that collects money from every worker’s paycheck and uses it to pay the medical bills of everyone 65 and older. And it’s immensely popular.
There’s every reason to believe that a program that extends universal coverage to the nonelderly would soon become equally popular. Consider the case of Massachusetts, which passed a state-level plan for universal coverage two years ago.
The Massachusetts plan has come in for a lot of criticism. It includes individual mandates — that is, people are required to buy coverage, even if they’d prefer to take their chances. And its costs are running much higher than expected, mainly because it turns out that there were more people without insurance than anyone realized.
Yet recent polls show overwhelming support for the plan — support that has grown stronger since it went into effect, despite the new system’s teething troubles. Once a system of universal health coverage exists, it seems, people want to keep it.
So why be nervous about the prospects for reform? Because it’s hard to get universal care established in the first place. There are, I’d argue, three big hurdles.
First, the Democrats have to win the election — and win it by enough to face down Republicans, who are still, 42 years after Medicare went into operation, denouncing “socialized medicine.”
Second, they have to overcome the public’s fear of change.
Some health care reformers wanted the Democrats to endorse a single-payer, Medicare-type system for all. On the sheer economic merits, they’re right: single-payer would be more efficient than a system that preserves a role for private insurance companies.
But it’s better to have an imperfect universal health care plan than none at all — and the only way to get a universal health care plan passed soon is to inoculate it against Harry-and-Louise-type claims that people will be forced into plans “designed by government bureaucrats.” So the Democratic platform emphasizes choice, declaring that Americans “should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan.” We’ll see if that’s enough.
The final hurdle facing health care reform is the risk that the next president and Congress will lose focus. There will be many problems crying out for solutions, from a weak economy to foreign policy crises. It will be easy and tempting to put health care on the back burner for a bit — and then forget about it.
So I’m nervous. The history of the pursuit of universal health care in America is one of missed chances, of political opportunities frittered away. Let’s hope that this time is different.
One more thing: if we do get real health care reform, a lot of people will owe a debt of gratitude to none other than John Edwards. When Mr. Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, I credited him with making universal health care a “possible dream for the next administration.” Mr. Edwards’s political career is over — but perhaps he and his family can take some solace from the fact that his party is still trying to make that dream come true.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal Can Democrats deliver on that commitment? In principle, it should be easy. In practice, supporters of health care reform, myself included, will be hanging on by their fingernails until legislation is actually passed.
What’s easy about guaranteed health care for all? For one thing, we know that it’s economically feasible: every wealthy country except the United States already has some form of guaranteed health care. The hazards Americans treat as facts of life — the risk of losing your insurance, the risk that you won’t be able to afford necessary care, the chance that you’ll be financially ruined by medical costs — would be considered unthinkable in any other advanced nation.
The politics of guaranteed care are also easy, at least in one sense: if the Democrats do manage to establish a system of universal coverage, the nation will love it.
I know that’s not what everyone says; some pundits claim that the United States has a uniquely individualistic culture, and that Americans won’t accept any system that makes health care a collective responsibility. Those who say this, however, seem to forget that we already have a program — you may have heard of it — called Medicare. It’s a program that collects money from every worker’s paycheck and uses it to pay the medical bills of everyone 65 and older. And it’s immensely popular.
There’s every reason to believe that a program that extends universal coverage to the nonelderly would soon become equally popular. Consider the case of Massachusetts, which passed a state-level plan for universal coverage two years ago.
The Massachusetts plan has come in for a lot of criticism. It includes individual mandates — that is, people are required to buy coverage, even if they’d prefer to take their chances. And its costs are running much higher than expected, mainly because it turns out that there were more people without insurance than anyone realized.
Yet recent polls show overwhelming support for the plan — support that has grown stronger since it went into effect, despite the new system’s teething troubles. Once a system of universal health coverage exists, it seems, people want to keep it.
So why be nervous about the prospects for reform? Because it’s hard to get universal care established in the first place. There are, I’d argue, three big hurdles.
First, the Democrats have to win the election — and win it by enough to face down Republicans, who are still, 42 years after Medicare went into operation, denouncing “socialized medicine.”
Second, they have to overcome the public’s fear of change.
Some health care reformers wanted the Democrats to endorse a single-payer, Medicare-type system for all. On the sheer economic merits, they’re right: single-payer would be more efficient than a system that preserves a role for private insurance companies.
But it’s better to have an imperfect universal health care plan than none at all — and the only way to get a universal health care plan passed soon is to inoculate it against Harry-and-Louise-type claims that people will be forced into plans “designed by government bureaucrats.” So the Democratic platform emphasizes choice, declaring that Americans “should have the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan.” We’ll see if that’s enough.
The final hurdle facing health care reform is the risk that the next president and Congress will lose focus. There will be many problems crying out for solutions, from a weak economy to foreign policy crises. It will be easy and tempting to put health care on the back burner for a bit — and then forget about it.
So I’m nervous. The history of the pursuit of universal health care in America is one of missed chances, of political opportunities frittered away. Let’s hope that this time is different.
One more thing: if we do get real health care reform, a lot of people will owe a debt of gratitude to none other than John Edwards. When Mr. Edwards dropped out of the presidential race, I credited him with making universal health care a “possible dream for the next administration.” Mr. Edwards’s political career is over — but perhaps he and his family can take some solace from the fact that his party is still trying to make that dream come true.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Figure in Abramoff scandal raises money for McCain
Original Link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008110916_apmccainfundraiser.html
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
WEST BLOOMFIELD, Mich. —
A political strategist tied to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal is helping raise money for John McCain, urging his fellow Georgia Republicans to attend a fundraiser for the presidential candidate in Atlanta.
Ralph Reed, former director of the Christian Coalition, said he had agreed to be on McCain's "Victory 2008 Team" in an e-mail that solicited donations on McCain's behalf. The Republican National Committee is hosting the fundraiser set for an Atlanta hotel on Aug. 18.
A House investigative committee in 2006 did not call Reed as a witness, but concluded that he interceded with the Bush White House to help some of Abramoff's clients. Reed's public relations firm also received $4.2 million from Abramoff to mobilize Christian voters to fight the opening of casinos that could compete with Abramoff's Indian tribe clients.
Reed later said he regretted the actions, which contributed to his 2006 Republican primary loss in a bid to be Georgia's lieutenant governor. Abramoff went to prison for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion.
McCain led a Senate investigation into Abramoff's dealings with Indian tribes, which included information about his ties to Reed. McCain said in a November 2007 presidential debate: "I led in the Abramoff hearings in the, in the obscure Indian Affairs Committee, for which people are still testifying and going to jail."
On Wednesday, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean criticized what he called "McCain's decision to cozy up to one of the central figures in the Republican culture of corruption."
In an e-mail statement, Reed said, "I take the long view of politics, which is that yesterday's opponent can be tomorrow's friend or ally." He said he suppports the Arizona Republican but holds "no position, title or official role in the McCain campaign and am not seeking one."
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported last week that Reed sent a message to an undetermined number of Georgia Republicans, saying that McCain "will be coming to Atlanta on August 18 for a very special event at the Marriott Marquis downtown and I have agreed to serve as a member of the McCain Victory 2008 Team."
Reed urged the recipients to donate money, saying, "If you select to use your credit card, you may fax the form to me."
The McCain campaign Wednesday referred questions to the Republican National Committee.
RNC spokesman Alex Conant said, "It's laughable Democrats would try to make this a political issue, considering John McCain led the Abramoff investigations and has a record of fighting to reform Washington."
Conant noted that Democratic candidate Barack Obama has had fundraising controversies, too, including instances in which Obama returned donations from tainted contributors.
The House Government Reform Committee reported in 2006 that Reed, who was close to Bush political adviser Karl Rove, helped Abramoff obtain a spot on the administration's 2001 transition team at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an agency important to his clients.
"Do you think you might be able to contact Karl, as I am sure you have more weight there," Abramoff said in an e-mail to Reed. "Be happy to," Reed replied.
The House report found at least 14 instances in which Abramoff asked Reed to contact Rove on matters including political appointments "and obtaining favorable actions on client matters."
The report confirmed e-mails that Time magazine published in 2005 in which Abramoff asked Reed to help block the proposed appointment of the wife of Orson Swindle - who was a Vietnam prisoner of war with McCain - to an Interior Department job.
"Can you ping Karl on this?" Abramoff wrote. "I can't believe they just don't get this done."
Reed responded: "Talked to Rove about this and I think I killed it. He's on it. Keep this between us, don't want to raise expectations, but I banged on this one hard."
Swindle's wife did not get the job. Swindle has been an ally of McCain's campaign, criticizing Obama supporter Wesley Clark last month for saying that McCain's Vietnam service doesn't qualify him for the White House.
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
WEST BLOOMFIELD, Mich. —
A political strategist tied to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal is helping raise money for John McCain, urging his fellow Georgia Republicans to attend a fundraiser for the presidential candidate in Atlanta.
Ralph Reed, former director of the Christian Coalition, said he had agreed to be on McCain's "Victory 2008 Team" in an e-mail that solicited donations on McCain's behalf. The Republican National Committee is hosting the fundraiser set for an Atlanta hotel on Aug. 18.
A House investigative committee in 2006 did not call Reed as a witness, but concluded that he interceded with the Bush White House to help some of Abramoff's clients. Reed's public relations firm also received $4.2 million from Abramoff to mobilize Christian voters to fight the opening of casinos that could compete with Abramoff's Indian tribe clients.
Reed later said he regretted the actions, which contributed to his 2006 Republican primary loss in a bid to be Georgia's lieutenant governor. Abramoff went to prison for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion.
McCain led a Senate investigation into Abramoff's dealings with Indian tribes, which included information about his ties to Reed. McCain said in a November 2007 presidential debate: "I led in the Abramoff hearings in the, in the obscure Indian Affairs Committee, for which people are still testifying and going to jail."
On Wednesday, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean criticized what he called "McCain's decision to cozy up to one of the central figures in the Republican culture of corruption."
In an e-mail statement, Reed said, "I take the long view of politics, which is that yesterday's opponent can be tomorrow's friend or ally." He said he suppports the Arizona Republican but holds "no position, title or official role in the McCain campaign and am not seeking one."
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported last week that Reed sent a message to an undetermined number of Georgia Republicans, saying that McCain "will be coming to Atlanta on August 18 for a very special event at the Marriott Marquis downtown and I have agreed to serve as a member of the McCain Victory 2008 Team."
Reed urged the recipients to donate money, saying, "If you select to use your credit card, you may fax the form to me."
The McCain campaign Wednesday referred questions to the Republican National Committee.
RNC spokesman Alex Conant said, "It's laughable Democrats would try to make this a political issue, considering John McCain led the Abramoff investigations and has a record of fighting to reform Washington."
Conant noted that Democratic candidate Barack Obama has had fundraising controversies, too, including instances in which Obama returned donations from tainted contributors.
The House Government Reform Committee reported in 2006 that Reed, who was close to Bush political adviser Karl Rove, helped Abramoff obtain a spot on the administration's 2001 transition team at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an agency important to his clients.
"Do you think you might be able to contact Karl, as I am sure you have more weight there," Abramoff said in an e-mail to Reed. "Be happy to," Reed replied.
The House report found at least 14 instances in which Abramoff asked Reed to contact Rove on matters including political appointments "and obtaining favorable actions on client matters."
The report confirmed e-mails that Time magazine published in 2005 in which Abramoff asked Reed to help block the proposed appointment of the wife of Orson Swindle - who was a Vietnam prisoner of war with McCain - to an Interior Department job.
"Can you ping Karl on this?" Abramoff wrote. "I can't believe they just don't get this done."
Reed responded: "Talked to Rove about this and I think I killed it. He's on it. Keep this between us, don't want to raise expectations, but I banged on this one hard."
Swindle's wife did not get the job. Swindle has been an ally of McCain's campaign, criticizing Obama supporter Wesley Clark last month for saying that McCain's Vietnam service doesn't qualify him for the White House.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
More college students using food stamps
Original Link: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/200/story/47818.html
By Evan S. Benn and Scott Andron The Miami Herald
In a down economy, some Florida college students have found a new form of financial aid: food stamps.
The number of Sunshine State students receiving stamps was up 44 percent in July compared to the same time in 2007.
That's about twice the rate of increase for food-stamp recipients in the population as a whole.
Statewide, 54,116 students were receiving the stamps, including 10,506 in Miami-Dade alone. Broward had another 4,311, according to figures from the state Department of Children & Families. Monroe had 51.
The numbers reflect a nationwide trend.
''It's pretty much impossible to get by anymore without some help,'' said John English, a Palm Beach Community College student who has received stamps.
English, 20, said he was in a halfway house when he moved to South Florida from Ohio. And signing up for the stamps wasn't hard.
''I got in easy,'' he said. "But then I got a job that paid a decent amount, and I couldn't qualify for food stamps anymore.''
By Evan S. Benn and Scott Andron The Miami Herald
In a down economy, some Florida college students have found a new form of financial aid: food stamps.
The number of Sunshine State students receiving stamps was up 44 percent in July compared to the same time in 2007.
That's about twice the rate of increase for food-stamp recipients in the population as a whole.
Statewide, 54,116 students were receiving the stamps, including 10,506 in Miami-Dade alone. Broward had another 4,311, according to figures from the state Department of Children & Families. Monroe had 51.
The numbers reflect a nationwide trend.
''It's pretty much impossible to get by anymore without some help,'' said John English, a Palm Beach Community College student who has received stamps.
English, 20, said he was in a halfway house when he moved to South Florida from Ohio. And signing up for the stamps wasn't hard.
''I got in easy,'' he said. "But then I got a job that paid a decent amount, and I couldn't qualify for food stamps anymore.''
Most corporations pay no federal income tax
Original Link: http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2008/08/study_most_corp.html
Most US and foreign companies doing business in the United States pay no federal income tax, according to a study by the Government Accountability Office.
It said two-thirds of US corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, and about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the country avoided corporate taxes over the same period.
‘‘It’s shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country,’’ said Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, who asked for the study with Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan.
An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called S corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.
‘‘Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code,’’ Edwards said.
The study by the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, did not investigate why corporations weren’t paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.
More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million US companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the US corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.
Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices — amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities.
‘‘It’s time for the big corporations to pay their fair share,’’ Dorgan said.
Most US and foreign companies doing business in the United States pay no federal income tax, according to a study by the Government Accountability Office.
It said two-thirds of US corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, and about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the country avoided corporate taxes over the same period.
‘‘It’s shameful that so many corporations make big profits and pay nothing to support our country,’’ said Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, who asked for the study with Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan.
An outside tax expert, Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, said increasing numbers of limited liability corporations and so-called S corporations pay taxes under individual tax codes.
‘‘Half of all business income in the United States now ends up going through the individual tax code,’’ Edwards said.
The study by the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, did not investigate why corporations weren’t paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.
More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million US companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the US corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.
Dorgan and Levin have complained about companies abusing transfer prices — amounts charged on transactions between companies in a group, such as a parent and subsidiary. In some cases, multinational companies can manipulate transfer prices to shift income from higher to lower tax jurisdictions, cutting their tax liabilities.
‘‘It’s time for the big corporations to pay their fair share,’’ Dorgan said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)