Showing posts with label Parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parliament. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 6

The role of stock ownership by US members of Congress on the market for political favors

this was not surprising at all. I quote the abstract:

I examine whether stock ownership by politicians helps to enforce noncontractible quid pro quo relations with firms. The ownership by US Congress members in firms contributing to their election campaigns is higher than in noncontributors. This bias toward contributors depends on the financial incentives of politicians and the relation's value. Firms with a stronger ownership–contribution association receive more government contracts. The financial gains from these contracts are economically large. When politicians divest stocks, firms discontinue contributions to the politicians, lose future contracts, and perform poorly. Politicians divest the stocks in contributors, but not in noncontributors, in anticipation of retirement.

In a way, from a purely economics view, this makes perfect sense. Incentives are everything, no? So the fact that both the congress and the companies work to ensure each other get remunerated shouldnt be a surprise, eh? This allows both parties to skate around the bribery restrictions. Neato. bah!

The author gives two publicly available news stories.

The Case of Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA)

Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA) is a 16-term member of Congress and has been a member of the House Appropriations Committee since 1980. From 2005–2006, he served as chairman of the full committee, and he currently serves as a ranking member. Rep. Lewis’ ethical issues arise from misusing his position on the Appropriations Committee to steer hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks to family, friends, former employees, and corporations in exchange for contributions to his campaign committee:

“In 2005, shortly after becoming chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Rep. Lewis was asked to buy into an initial public offering of a fledgling bank, Security Bank of California, headed by his close friend James Robinson. Rep. Lewis’ initial investment of $22,000 for 2,200 stocks in Security Bank was worth nearly $60,000 in 2006, an increase of almost 300%. The stock was recommended to Rep. Lewis by Mr. Robinson's wife, a former chair and board member of the Loma Linda University Children's Hospital Foundation, a branch of Loma Linda University Medical Center. Rep. Lewis has helped direct more than $200 million in federal dollars to the medical center, which has facilities named in his honor. In June 2006, Rep. Lewis acknowledged that the medical center benefitted from $40 million in earmarks. Many of Security Bank's board members have also contributed to Rep. Lewis’ campaign and are linked to businesses that received federal earmarks. They include Zareh Sarrafian, an executive with Loma Linda Medical Center and president of the Hospital Foundation's board, and Bruce Varner, a friend of Rep. Lewis’ who served on the board of the National Orange Show Events Center in San Bernardino. The center has received more than $800,000 in federal funds.” (CREW report 2009, pp. 37–38)

The Case of Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA)

Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) is a 10-term member of Congress and a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee. She arranged a meeting between the Department of Treasury and OneUnited Bank, a company with close financial ties to Ms. Waters, involving both investments and contributions:

“In September 2008, Rep. Waters asked then-Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson to hold a meeting for minority-owned banks that had suffered from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac losses. The Treasury Department complied and held a session with approximately a dozen senior banking regulators, representatives from minority-owned banks, and their trade association. Officials of OneUnited Bank, one of the largest black-owned banks in the country that has close ties to Rep. Waters, attended the meeting along with Rep. Waters’ chief of staff. Kevin Cohee, chief executive officer of OneUnited, used the meeting as an opportunity to ask for bailout funds.... Former Bush White House officials stated they were surprised when OneUnited Officials asked for bailout funds.... In December 2008, Rep. Waters intervened again, asking Treasury to host another meeting to ensure minority-owned banks received part of the $700 billion allocated under the Troubled Asset Relief Program… Within two weeks, on December 19, 2008, OneUnited secured $12.1 million in bailout funds… This was not the first time Rep. Waters used her position to advance the interests of the bank. Rep. Waters’ spouse, Sidney Williams, became a shareholder in OneUnited in 2001, when it was known as the Boston Bank of Commerce. In 2002, Boston Bank of Commerce tried to purchase Family Savings, a minority-owned bank in Los Angeles. Instead, Family Savings turned to a bank in Illinois. Rep. Waters tried to block the merger by contacting regulators at the FDIC. She publicly stated she did not want a major white bank to acquire a minority-owned bank. When her efforts with the FDIC proved fruitless, Rep. Waters began a public pressure campaign with other community leaders. Ultimately, when Family Savings changed direction and allowed Boston Bank of Commerce to submit a winning bid, Rep. Waters received credit for the merger. The combined banks were renamed OneUnited.... In March 2004, she acquired OneUnited stock worth between $250,001 and $500,000, and Mr. Williams purchased two sets of stock, each worth between $250,001 and $500,000. In September 2004, Rep. Waters sold her stock in OneUnited and her husband sold a portion of his. That same year, Mr. Williams joined the bank's board.... OneUnited Chief Executive Kevin Cohee and President Teri Williams Cohee have donated a total of $8,000 to Rep. Waters’ campaign committee…. On October 27, 2009, less than two months before OneUnited received a $12 million bailout, the bank received a cease-and-desist order from the FDIC and bank regulatory officials in Massachusetts for poor lending practices and excessive executive compensation... the bank provided excessive perks to its executives, including paying for Mr. Cohee's use of a $6.4 million mansion…” (CREW report 2009, pp. 123–125).

Tuesday, November 10

How the UK improved its Parliament

While the MP’s have proven themselves to be a bunch of slimy gits on the matter of expenses, quietly on another side of the equation, they have improved the quality of Parliament through a small but crucial step of introducing topical debate mechanism. Here, read the government response to the report in question which actually brought this about, specially the Recommendation 16 & 17. I quote in full including the government response:

Rec 16 The topicality of debates in the Chamber should be improved. We believe that the House will attract greater attention from Members, the public and the media if it finds a means of debating topical issues

Rec 17 We recommend that provision should be made in Standing Orders for topical debates on issues of regional, national or international importance to be held on one day each week. Topical debates would last for an hour and a half and be taken immediately after questions and statements but before the main business of the day. (Paragraph 59)


11. The Government agrees with the case made for improving the topicality of debates in the Chamber and in particular for a system of regular 90 minute topical debates on issues of regional, national or international importance. In accordance with later recommendation (Rec 23) of the report, this would be a debate on a motion ‘That this House has considered [the matter of xxx]’. Since such motions are intended to replace main ‘adjournment’ debates, they should not be amendable. The Government agrees also that specific provisions and understandings are needed to govern speaking time in such debates, in accordance with the
principles set out under Rec 32 of the report (see paragraph 28 below).


12. The Government agrees that such a debate should take place on a weekly basis. Although a pattern of such debates taking place on a particular day each week might emerge, in practice the scheduling of debates would have to remain with the Leader of the House to reflect the demands of other business (including, as the report observes, the desirability of avoiding Opposition Days where possible). The selection of debate – not least to ensure that the subject is genuinely “regional, national or international” which could not be guaranteed under a ballot system – would be announced by the Leader of the House following discussions in the usual channels and following representations from opposition parties and backbenchers. If the slot identified for the topical
debate in a given week is on a Monday or Tuesday then the subject would generally be announced at the preceding Thursday business statement. But in order to preserve maximum opportunity for topicality, then where the slot for the debate is on a Wednesday or Thursday, it is envisaged that the subject would be notified to the House by the tabling of the relevant motion on the preceding Monday.

This paper reviewed the performance of this small step and found that it was indeed quite good in its way to improve the quality of debate in the House of Commons. Given that usually parliament time is taken up by government pushed large topics of the day, the fact that time has been set aside to actually debate topics which back bench members raise means that the topics are now much broader, the topics relate to more esoteric and in many ways, more local constituency issues.

Something good that the Labour Party has done. Good work there. Small steps, small steps would assist in making the UK a better democratic society more responsive to its citizens.

Friday, February 6

Minister for Higher Education – definitely not a mastermind

This was terrifying. This chap has qualifications from here to kingdom come, he is a Member of Parliament in the UK, studied at SOAS and then Harvard Law School. He was in the Health Ministry, Constitutional Affairs and then Minister for Culture. Now he is responsible for higher education.

So what does this brainiac decide to do? He goes on celebrity mastermind. For those who do not know, its a rather high brow quiz show and you do need to show a modicum of intelligence other wise you show up as an utter twit.

He says he has the gift of the gab. Obviously, his gift of the gab comes with no knowledge of facts or knowledge, but since he is a politician, we do not expect him to do anything with his gab. Some of his answers:

  • Marie Antoinette discovered radiation.
  • Rose Revolution happened in Yugoslavia.
  • Leicester cheese accompanies port.  Leicester is BLUE???!!!!!
  • Confusing Godfather with Soprano’s.
  • Didn't know what the purple heart award was for.

    and the best one!!!!!

  • Henry VIII's son was Henry VII (in his defence, he does shake his head after realising that he made a clanger)
  • What a frightening situation. He didn't even get a story on football right!!!. Now one is definitely worried about the state of Higher Education in the country. Check out his website. It is so much “I, Me, Myself”, let me bang the drum for myself. God, Minister, pipe it down and for heaven’s sake, leave the gab alone.

    But the funny thing is, he is a Minister of Higher Education and Intellectual Property. I suspect somebody has stolen his intellectual property, no? For example, I wasted some valuable minutes hearing him talk about progressive young London and what can they do and and and. After watching it, I then tried to think, so what did I take away? I am afraid to say that I am an idiot. Couldn't think of anything concrete to take away…

    heavens!

     

     

  • Sunday, January 18

    Letter to my MP complaining about their expenses.

    The problem relates to this issue. Extraordinary. Why on earth are they hiding their expenses? So when Scotland can do it without any security or administration issues, why is Westminster doing this? Truly disgraceful.

    FOR THE ATTENTION OF:
    Gareth Thomas MP
    Harrow West
    Sunday 18 January 2009

    Dear Mr. Thomas,
    I was astonished to hear that the MPs have voted to hide the details of their expenses from being revealed to the general public. I fail to understand why you are doing so. I do not know if you also voted to so so, but I would hope not.
    You see, I have to do that, every pence I spend of my company's money, I have to justify. If I dont, then the claim is rejected. If I had to put it in another way, it would be called as stealing. Now you dont do it, but why on earth are you allowing the name of the British Parliament to be besmirched? Over such a trivial issue? Why would you and your colleagues hide this?
    It IS our business, your colleagues have, over and over again, shown an alarming lack of probity relating to spending my money. So why on earth is your party's ministers trying to hide this basic economic and business practice? Surely you all do not have anything to hide, do you?
    And please tell Harriet Harman that her excuses of administrative expense (do you think rest of the business world does not do so?) or security (what security? I dont want to know security details, keep them, I want to know what you spend your money on) wash? No they do not.
    In this time of everybody belt tightening, it is really very unfair to hear about the fact that the parliament is now voting to keep its spending secret.
    Yours sincerely,
    bd
    Dr. Bhaskar Dasgupta