Verbosities

Forget the questions about Monica Lewinsky. I want university students to ask Chelsea Clinton this simple question: Will your father reimburse the American taxpayer the $8 million in benefits that he has received and parlayed into $110 million in personal income, or at the very least, begin to waive these perks in the future?

Politico>Taxpyaer fund Bill Clinton spending:

The price tag for Clinton’s federal retirement allowance from 2001 through
the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for George H.
W. Bush’s and $4 million for Jimmy Carter’s during the same period.

Since 2001,
Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to former presidents
— from his pension to his staff’s salaries and benefits to supplies. His
$420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both nearly surpassed the
totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and the late former presidents
Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined. As a group, they spent $484,000 on
telephone service and $3.8 million on rent in the same span.

Granted he is entitled to these benefits by law but let's get real here. He has used his presidency to his advantage to boost his net worth and can easily get by without raping taxpayers for more money. This is simple greed and any decent man would at the very least waive some of these perks for the benefit of the taxpayer.

The Wisconsin Attorney General wants the proposed merger between Sirius Satellite and XMFM to be blocked on fear that a monopoly would occur and prices would go up as services go down. Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl boldly states the only result is a monopoly.

Well, actually there is another result. Both companies go bankrupt.

Both Sirius and XMFM had bled money like stuck pigs. Between the two of them they have lost $8 billion. Eight billion dollars lost trying to serve approximately 17 million customers. In a land of 300 million, that is roughly 5%. The companies believe they are on the cusp of making a profit. That is yet to be seen. Even an operation profit does not guarantee they will be able to survive. Unless they merge and share the overhead.

Wisconsin AG Van Holland- a Republican- fears that rural Wisconsin satellite radio users will feel the pinch. Really? Please tell me how many of the 17 million live in the hills of Wisconsin.

Shouldn't the service actually become better? XM has Major League Baseball, the PGA, and the National Hockey League. Sirius has the NFL, NBA, and NASCAR. Suddenly you have them all instead of some.

The argument of a monopoly is flat out ridiculous. For satellite radio to survice, they need to get into your home. They realize that providing service mainly to cars is not the road to profitability. Thus the boomboxes that have been developed. They need to compete with your source of music in your house. But think of all the sources of music available. The internet, your ipod, cable TV, your CDs, cassettes, and albums. There are many others places for one to listen to music and sporting events. I don't know about Senator Kohl or AG Van Hollen but I call that competition. In your home satellite radio is not the only alternative here. With the way technology changes there could be a new method of delivery next year. Besides, who says one of the cable companies may not jump into the fray with there own service?

Or you can do what I do. Listen to the radio in my car. That is still FREE! I choose not to pay for radio. Others have chosen to pay for the service. Shouldn't they be the ones that decide this matter?

Left in the hands of those in the government, we could find ourselves having no satellite radio in the future.

They have too much invested in it:

Members of the U.S.Congress have as much as $196 million (€126.2 million) collectively invested in companies doing business with the Defense Department, earning millions since the start of the Iraq war, according to a new study by a nonpartisan research group.

The review of lawmakers' 2006 financial disclosure statements, by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, suggests that members' holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending. Several members who earned the most from defense contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry, independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

In case it's not clear already, both Democrats and Republicans are involved:

The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million (€2.3 million) in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500 (€372,000).

Overall, 151 members hold investments worth $78.7 million (€50.6 million) to $195.5 million (€125.9 million) in companies that receive defense contracts that are worth at least $5 million (€3.2 million). These investments earned them anywhere between $15.8 million (€10.1 million) and $62 million (€39.9 million) between 2004 and 2006, the center concludes.

If you're not angry yet, wait till you read this statement:

A spokesman for Blunt, a senior member of House Republican leadership who held at least $15,000 (€9,660) in Lockheed Martin stock in 2006, said the insinuation that lawmakers' votes might be affected by their portfolios is "offensive."

"I don't pretend to speak for other offices, but I am fairly certain that no member would consider their personal finances when voting on issues as important as sending our men and women in uniform into harm's way," said Blunt spokesman Nick Simpson.

Translation: "Members of Congress are always objective."

Somehow, I don't think so. Make sure you click through to the entire article and check out the facts that are discussed about certain members of Congress. For example, the person who's earned the most money is anti-war advocate John Kerry.

The mind boggles.