Boehner reworked financial portfolio after talks w/ Treasury

By Kimberly Kindy, Scott Higham, David S. Fallis and Dan Keating, Published: June 24, 2012

In January 2008, President George W. Bush was scrambling to bolster the American economy. The subprime mortgage industry was collapsing, and the Dow Jones industrial average had lost more than 2,000 points in less than three months.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner became the Bush administration’s point person on Capitol Hill to negotiate a $150 billion stimulus package.

In the days that followed, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. made frequent phone calls and visits to Boehner. Neither Paulson nor Boehner would publicly discuss the progress of their negotiations to shore up the nation’s financial portfolio.

On Jan. 23, Boehner (R-Ohio) met Paulson for breakfast. Boehner would later report the rearrangement of a portion of his own financial portfolio made on that same day. He sold between $50,000 and $100,000 from a more aggressive mutual fund and moved money into a safer investment.

The next day, the White House unveiled the stimulus package.

(read the whole report at...)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ml?hpid=z1

I think if the ordinary citizen did something like this, it would be called insider trading and it would be illegal.

Personally I don't think any elected or appointed official should be able to hold any stocks during their stay in office. I think all of their holdings should be required to be sold and placed in Treasury Notes or Municipal Bonds for the duration of their tenure in office. That might be one way we get them to stop seeking to hold the office for life as well as eliminate one of the myriad of ways by which the damages of the corruption that goes along with wielding power can be mitigated to some extent.

PS,
Consider the unintended consequences.
1) One more reason for qualified people to not run for office.
2) No stake in reviving the market.
3) Investing in bonds could still affect how they behave. Bailing out municipalitiies that you have bonds with for example.

Imagine if Boehner had turned all his investments into gold, food and guns and this info got out!!!!

Yes, only Republicans could come up with twisted logic to look at "insider trading" as a positive...

Democracy4Sale wrote: Yes, only Republicans could come up with twisted logic to look at "insider trading" as a positive...

Bulls eye... from the same story linked above...

Published: June 24, 2012 - The Washington Post

Boehner is one of 34 members of Congress who took steps to recast their financial portfolios during the financial crisis after phone calls or meetings with Paulson; his successor, Timothy F. Geithner; or Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, according to a Washington Post examination of appointment calendars and congressional disclosure forms.

The lawmakers, many of whom held leadership positions and committee chairmanships in the House and Senate, changed portions of their portfolios a total of 166 times within two business days of speaking or meeting with the administration officials. The party affiliation of the lawmakers was about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, 19 to 15. [/b][/i]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ml?hpid=z1

Your predilection of blaming the GOP for everything must has clouded your reading comprehension. You did read the article? Right?

I could be wrong but I suspect LJ was referring to the Republicans here putting a positive spin on insider trading. Sorry if I misinterpreted you LJ.

I think elected official's nvestments should be in a blind trust and frozen for the duration of the time they are in office. Neither they, nor their trustee, nor their immediate family should be allowed to buy or sell. That won't solve all the issues, but it might limit their unfair advantages.

archer wrote: I could be wrong but I suspect LJ was referring to the Republicans here putting a positive spin on insider trading. Sorry if I misinterpreted you LJ.

I think elected official's nvestments should be in a blind trust and frozen for the duration of the time they are in office. Neither they, nor their trustee, nor their immediate family should be allowed to buy or sell. That won't solve all the issues, but it might limit their unfair advantages.

IIRC, It is already this way for the President but it does need to be extended to Congress.

Question, one of the Dem Senators owns a chain of stores that has been in his family for generations, should he be forced to sell his share?
How about a multigenerational family farm or ranch? Bed & Breakfast?

Owning a farm or ranch is quite different than owning investments that you buy and sell...possibly doing that on information you received as a result of your elected office. Any holding you have in a business should be turned over to someone else for the duration of your time in office....you work for us now, not your business.

archer wrote: I could be wrong but I suspect LJ was referring to the Republicans here putting a positive spin on insider trading. Sorry if I misinterpreted you LJ.

You didn't...