Top Industries
2010 Race: Massachusetts District 04
Most members of Congress get the bulk of their campaign contributions from two main sources: the industries that make up the economic base of their home district and the Washington-based interest groups that pay more attention to the member's committee assignments in Congress. In addition, most Democrats receive substantial sums from labor unions.
From this table, you can get a flavor of which are the top industries giving to the candidates running for Congress in your district. Do the industries match your local economy, or are they more Washington-based? If the latter, the candidate may have divided loyalties on issues where the interests of their cash constituents conflict with those of the voters who elected them.
Barney Frank (D)
Industry Total Securities & Investment $251,958 Insurance $227,449 Real Estate $213,750 Lawyers/Law Firms $170,714 Retired $123,771 Misc Finance $102,750 Democratic/Liberal $71,837 Commercial Banks $70,800 Casinos/Gambling $61,400 Lobbyists $56,800 Accountants $42,950 Business Services $35,750 General Contractors $30,350 Misc Unions $27,500 Finance/Credit Companies $24,000 Health Professionals $23,080 Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $22,900 Education $22,150 Printing & Publishing $21,700 Hospitals/Nursing Homes $21,190 Sean D. Bielat (R)
Industry Total Retired $46,750 Securities & Investment $35,600 Lawyers/Law Firms $21,826 Misc Finance $12,850 Real Estate $11,950 Misc Business $10,500 Health Professionals $7,050 TV/Movies/Music $6,800 Commercial Banks $6,450 Civil Servants/Public Officials $6,150 Business Services $6,150 Computers/Internet $3,500 Printing & Publishing $3,400 Accountants $3,100 Education $2,500 Insurance $2,500 Chemical & Related Manufacturing $2,250 Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $2,000 Oil & Gas $1,750 Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $1,650
Top Contributors
Jim Himes (D) *
Contributor Total General Electric $48,050 Goldman Sachs $22,850 Metropolitan Museum of Art $19,200 Brown Brothers Harriman & Co $16,800 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance $15,000 United Technologies $15,000 Tudor Investment $14,800 Credit Suisse Group $13,900 Bank of America $12,900 Deutsche Bank AG $12,600 Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder $12,600 PricewaterhouseCoopers $12,500 Teamsters Union $12,500 First Marblehead Corp $11,100 JPMorgan Chase & Co $11,050 Credit Union National Assn $11,000 Travelers Companies $11,000 Citigroup Inc $10,300 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $10,000 American Resort Development Assn $10,000 AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America $10,000 BRIDGE PAC $10,000 Hartford Financial Services $10,000 Honeywell International $10,000 IMS Health $10,000 International Assn of Fire Fighters $10,000 Investment Co Institute $10,000 KPMG LLP $10,000 National Assn of Letter Carriers $10,000 National Assn of Realtors $10,000 New Democrat Coalition $10,000 New York Life Insurance $10,000 Operating Engineers Union $10,000 PAC to the Future $10,000 Service Employees International Union $10,000 Sullivan & Cromwell $10,000 Synergy PAC $10,000 UNITE HERE $10,000 USAA $10,000 Dan Debicella (R)
Contributor Total Wexford Capital $22,800 PepsiCo Inc $14,800 Haebler Capital $14,400 Bank of America $14,255 McKinsey & Co $12,850 Kamber Management $12,600 Laverack Partners $12,000 State of Connecticut $11,163 General Atlantic Partners $10,900 Axiom International Investors $10,204 O'Shaughnessy Asset Management $10,100 Cowen Healthcare Royalty $9,600 Rangeley Capital $9,600 Southgate Alternative Investment $9,600 Morgan Stanley $9,550 Impala Asset Management $9,150 Edgewood Management $8,700 Round Hill Capital-Atlanta $8,275 JPMorgan Chase & Co $8,250 Auspex Group $8,200
Frankly Sir, You Are an Embarrassment
Posted: 27 Oct 2010 10:35 AM PDT
By Einar Du Rietz
Al Gore -- He did it again.
Recently, Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore toured again. Or maybe he does that all the time. This time, he turned up in Gothenburg (Sweden) for the usual alarmist talk. In advance, all distinguished guests were politely advised to – if possible – use any form of public transportation to go to the event, in order to minimize CO2 emissions.
Intriguingly, the Master of World Climate himself arrived in a rental car (with or without driver is unclear), from the airport, and subsequently left the engine running for the entire lecture. That is to say, about one hour. Incidentally, local legislation prohibits – for very good environmental reasons, i e pollution – any car engine running on empty for more than 60 seconds. Fines are severe. As far as I know, he was not fined.
It starts to form a pattern.
After the ceremony in the Norwegian capital Oslo, it is customary that the laureate is invited to the Swedish capital Stockholm, for a cordial visit. The train ride, supposedly the environmental choice according to Mr. Gore, is approximately four hours. However, he opted for the cosier ride with one of the Swedish government aircrafts. As these can, according to the rules, only be used when a cabinet member is on board – and as the Swedish government after a short ceremonial visit – offered to fly him to Frankfurt (Germany) for his flight to the US, you can calculate both the manpower and the fuel used for this grand tour against man's destruction of the planet.
Stupidity and hypocracy [sic] – as well as vanity – are, like it or not common human traits. I admit to some of them occasionally, but I don't demand taxpayers to finance my stupid talks at dinner (yes, I love doing that). Here's the deal Mr Gore: get out of my way, and I will keep out of yours.
BEHIND THE MONEY, JOHN MELLOY, CNBC, FAST MONEY, FAST MONEY RAPID RECAP, RAPID RECAP, "FAST MONEY", STOCKS, STOCK ANALYSIS, STOCK ADVICE, STOCK MARKET, BUSINESS NEWS, MARKET NEWS, WALL STREET, INVESTING, FINANCIAL NEWS, RETIREMENT ADVICE, PERSONAL FINANCE, ECONOMYPosted By: John Melloy | Executive Producer, Fast MoneyCNBC.com| 26 Oct 2010 | 02:26 PM ETThe overwhelming volume of sell transactions relative to buy transactions by company insiders over the last six months in key leading sectors of the market is the worst Alan Newman, editor of the Crosscurrents newsletter, has ever seen since he began tracking the data.
The strategist looked at insider trading activity amongst the top ten companies that make up the Nasdaq such as Apple , Google and Amazon .
Then he analyzed the biggest members of the Retail HOLDRs ETF like Gap , Target and Costco , as well as the top insiders in the semiconductor industry at companies such as Altera , Broadcom and Sandisk .
The largest companies in three of the most important leading sectors of the market have seen their executives classified as insiders sell more than 120 million shares of stock over the last six months. Top executives at these very same companies bought just 38,000 shares over that same time period, making for an eye-popping sell to buy ratio of 3,177 to one.
The grand total for the three sectors are “as awful as we have ever seen since we began doing this exercise years ago,” said Newman, who was ahead on such trends as the dangers of high-frequency trading and ETFs before the ‘Flash Crash’. “Clearly, insiders are seeing great value only in cash. Their actions speak volumes for the veracity for the current rally.”
But the overall market doesn’t seem to care. The S&P 500 is up 16 percent since its 2010 low hit on July 2nd on the back of strong earnings driven by cost-cutting and the hopes for even more quantitative easing from the Federal Reserve.
The insider data “is good reason for considerable caution once the price action fades,” said Simon Baker, CEO of Baker Asset Management. Still “insiders normally buy early and sell early too. Longer term -- 12 months out -- it is more of a red flag.”
Newman isn’t alone in warning about insider selling. The latest report from Vickers Weekly Insider, a publication that makes investments based upon these transactions, shows that total insider sell transactions relative to purchases on the New York Stock Exchange are running at a ratio of more than four to one over the last eight weeks. The normal reading, because of options selling and other factors, is about 2 sales for every buy, according to Vickers.
To be sure, many investors feel the heavy insider selling is just an anomaly based on other reasons.
“These are folks that have had to dip into their stocks for the first time in years, as their salaries have been cut and their bonuses, outside Wall Street, have been significantly curtailed,” said J.J. Kinahan, chief derivatives strategist for TD Ameritrade. “ This may speak more to a cash flow problem, then a market belief.”
Still Newman, who is also a favorite commentator of Barron’s columnist Alan Abelson, sees the insider selling as just the latest reason, along with the mortgage foreclosure mess and fully invested mutual fund managers with no fresh powder to put to work, to be cautious on the market.
“At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we expect a significant correction,” said the newsletter editor.
Interviewer: You said something a moment ago that I have to follow up on and I have to draw you out on. You said you don’t have to lie anymore now that you’re not a politician. What did you lie about when you were governor?
Jerry Brown: It’s all a lie. You’re pretending there’s a plan…
Interviewer: What did you lie about?
Jerry Brown: You run for office and the assumption is “Oh, I know what to do”. You don’t. I didn’t have a plan for California. Clinton doesn’t have a plan. Bush doesn’t have a plan.
Interviewer: You said you had a plan for California and you lied because you didn’t have a plan?
Jerry Brown: You say you’re going to lower taxes, you’re going to put people to work, you’re gonna improve the schools, you’re going to stop crime… crime is up, schools are worse, taxes are higher. I mean be real!
NASSER KARIMIFrom Associated PressOctober 24, 2010 10:03 AM EDT
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran has imposed new restrictions on 12 university social sciences deemed to be based on Western schools of thought and therefore incompatible with Islamic teachings, state radio reported Sunday.The list includes law, philosophy, management, psychology, political science and the two subjects that appear to cause the most concern among Iran's conservative leadership — women's studies and human rights.
....
$200 Billion in Ads, Mr. Biden? That’s Real Money
By MICHAEL D. SHEARConservative groups have not dumped $200 billion in political ads on the heads of Democratic candidates.
It evidently just feels that way to the White House.
In an interview with Al Hunt of Bloomberg News scheduled to be shown Friday night, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. commented on the need for disclosure when corporate interests contribute to political groups.
“I was amazed at the amount of money, this $200 billion of money that is — where there’s no accountability,” he said. “When I say accountability, we don’t know where it’s coming from. There’s no disclosure, so the folks watching the ad can’t make a judgment based upon motive when you say it’s paid for by so-and-so.”
Mr. Biden clearly meant “million” with an “M,” not “billion” with a “B.”
But his tongue slipped again a moment later. “So it really — I’ve never seen this before, so the only caveat I’d put in terms of the House is how much impact this $200 billion are going to mean.”
Mr. Biden was elected to the United States Senate, representing Delaware, a few years after the departure of Everett Dirksen, the Republican Senate minority leader for more than a decade, who died in 1969. It was Mr. Dirksen, from Illinois, who once said, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you’re talking real money.”
New poll: Debicella in the lead!
Dear Friends,
We just released the results of a new poll – and we’re in the lead!
Just days after announcing we out raised Congressman Jim Himes by over $200,000 and Real Clear Politics upgraded the CT-4 race to “toss-up,” our latest survey shows we’ve catapulted over incumbent Jim Himes, and now lead 46 to 42 percent!
With less than two weeks to go until Election Day, there’s no doubt we have the momentum. Will you make a contribution of $50, $250 or $2400 today to help us keep the heat on through Election Day?
Friends, nearly 40 percent of Fairfield County voters disapprove of Jim Himes’ job performance, while less than 45 percent would vote to re-elect him – these are troubling numbers for a sitting Congressman, but not surprising given Himes’ support for the failed Washington agenda he’s rubber-stamped. As more people get to know me, my favorability numbers have spiked, rising from 31 percent in September to 51 percent in today’s poll. Now, we need your financial support through November 2nd to make sure we pull off an upset victory in just 13 days. Can I count on you?
Thank you again for your firm commitment to our campaign.
All my best,
--Dan
Troops chafe at restrictive rules of engagement, talks with Taliban
By: Sara A. Carter
National Security Correspondent
October 19, 2010
KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- To the U.S. Army soldiers and Marines serving here, some things seem so obviously true that they are beyond debate. Among those perceived truths: The restrictive rules of engagement that they have to fight under have made serving in combat far more dangerous for them, while allowing the Taliban to return to a position of strength.
"If they use rockets to hit the [forward operating base] we can't shoot back because they were within 500 meters of the village. If they shoot at us and drop their weapon in the process we can't shoot back," said Spc. Charles Brooks, 26, a U.S. Army medic with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, in Zabul province.
Word had come down the morning Brooks spoke to this reporter that watch towers surrounding the base were going to be dismantled because Afghan village elders, some sympathetic to the Taliban, complained they were invading their village privacy. "We have to take down our towers because it offends them and now the Taliban can set up mortars and we can't see them," Brooks added, with disgust.
In June, Gen. David Petraeus, who took command here after the self-inflicted demise of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told Congress that he was weighing a major change with rules for engaging enemy fighters in Afghanistan. That has not yet happened, troops say. Soldiers and Marines continue to be held back by what they believe to be strict rules imposed by the government of President Hamid Karzai designed with one objective: limit Afghan civilian casualties.
"I don't think the military leaders, president or anybody really cares about what we're going through," said Spc. Matthew "Silver" Fuhrken, 25, from Watertown, N.Y. "I'm sick of people trying to cover up what's really going on over here. They won't let us do our job. I don't care if they try to kick me out for what I'm saying -- war is war and this is no war. I don't know what this is."
To the soldiers and Marines risking their lives in Afghanistan, restrictions on their ability to aggressively attack the Taliban have led to another enormous frustration stalking morale: the fear that the Karzai government, with the prodding of the administration of President Obama, will negotiate a peace with the Taliban that wastes all the sacrifices by the U.S. here. Those fears intensified when news reached the enlisted ranks that the Karzai government, with the backing of senior Obama officials, was entering a new round of negotiations with the Taliban.
"If we walk away, cut a deal with the Taliban, desert the people who needed us most, then this war was pointless," said Pvt. Jeffrey Ward, with 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, who is stationed at Forward Operating Base Bullard in southern Afghanistan.
"Everyone dies for their own reasons but it's sad to think that our friends, the troops, have given their lives for something we're not going to see through."
Other soldiers agreed. They said they feared few officials in the Pentagon understand the reality on the ground.
From the front lines, the U.S. backing of the Karzai government, widely seen as riddled with corruption by the Afghans living in local villages, has given the Taliban a position of power in villages while undercutting U.S. moral authority.
Corrupt government officials have made "it impossible for us to trust anyone," said elder Sha Barar, from the village of Sha Joy. The people of that village and many others profess fear of the Taliban, and recount tales of brutality and wanton killings by the Taliban and their sympathizers. But they don't see the Karzai government as a positive force in their lives.
Karzai said that talks need to continue with the Taliban "at a fixed address and with a more open agenda to tell us how to bring peace to Afghanistan and Pakistan."
But U.S. troops and Marines interviewed during the past month in Afghanistan question what negotiations would really mean, to both them and the Afghan people. And they almost universally believe that negotiating would be a mistake before achieving decisive gains they believe are attainable once oppressive rules of engagement are relaxed.
"What does it mean if we give in to the Taliban? They are the enemy," Brooks said. "This place is going to be a safe haven for terrorists again. The government doesn't care about the sacrifices already made. As far as the mission goes, I want to see these kids go to school and have a future but not at the expense of my friends -- not anymore."
Sara A. Carter is The Washington Examiner's national security correspondent. She can be reached at scarter@washingtonexaminer.com.
A productive Congress gets no respect from votersJIM ABRAMSFrom Associated PressOctober 18, 2010 9:10 AM EDTWASHINGTON (AP) — The public panned it. Republicans obstructed it. Many Democrats fled from it. Even so, the session of Congress now drawing to a close was the most productive in nearly half a century.
Not since the explosive years of the civil rights movement and the hard-fought debut of government-supported health care for the elderly and poor have so many big things — love them or hate them — been done so quickly.
Gridlock? It may feel that way. But that's not the story of the 111th Congress — not the story history will remember.
Democrats are dearly hoping history won't repeat itself. In 1966, after Democrats created Medicare and Medicaid and passed civil rights laws, they got hammered in the election, losing 48 seats in the House and four in the Senate. They maintained their majorities in both at the time, but an identical result next month would turn the House over to Republicans.
In the 1960s Democrats paid the price for events largely outside their control — an escalating war in Vietnam going badly, rowdy anti-war protests and violence in American cities, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College.
"I think that's what's going on this time too," Fowler said, "despite a very significant record of accomplishment."
Democrats struggling now to retain majorities in the House and Senate must deal with a public that is quick to blame Washington for the prolonged economic downturn, and that resents the bank bailouts that were actually passed by the previous Congress.
In terms of legislative successes, the current session of Congress is "at least on a par with the 89th Congress" of 1965-1966, said Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
But, he added, Republicans have done all they could to discredit Congress and Democrats have failed to sell their agenda. Moreover, it will take years to fully feel the effects of the health care law and financial regulation.
"A world dominated by bickering and epithet-throwing and bomb tossing in Washington obscures accomplishments," Ornstein said.
Congress passed an $814 billion economic stimulus package soon after President Barack Obama took office, tapping a staggering sum of money to avoid a full-blown depression. Democrats have trumpeted the gains from that effort, but know it's not enough for restive voters. "Americans still see themselves in a ditch," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
The two other landmark acts of this session were the health care overhaul, a giant step toward universal coverage that had eluded presidents back to Franklin Roosevelt if not Teddy Roosevelt, and the Wall Street accountability act.
Obama has also signed into law at least a dozen other pieces of legislation of significance. They include:
—Making college loans more affordable.
—The Cash for Clunkers program that helped rejuvenate the auto industry.
—New consumer protections for credit card users.
—Making it easier for women to challenge pay discrimination.
—Increasing federal regulation of tobacco products.
—Cracking down on waste in Pentagon weapons acquisition.
—Making attacks based on sexual orientation a federal hate crime.
—Giving businesses tax incentives to hire unemployed workers.
—Tax credits for first-time homeowners.
So where is the love?
Polls suggest three-fourths of Americans disapprove of Congress.
The 1960s were a time of upheaval, and Medicare only arrived after a bitter debate echoing with cries from the right that socialism was on the march in America. Yet people had a lot more faith in government to do the right thing, polls from that time indicate.
And Medicare grew to be so popular that Republicans, the party that resisted it, have been quick to accuse Democrats of trying to cut it when they proposed to slow its growth and use the savings to help provide medical care to millions who lack health insurance.
An erosion of trust in institutions in general has enabled Republicans to score points by arguing that Democratic Big Government programs are exploding the national debt, Ornstein said. The result, he added, is that not many Democrats are campaigning on the benefits of the stimulus package, even though one-third of it was tax cuts that put money in most people's pockets.
"The amazing thing is that we have had such a productive Congress despite the obstructionism," Hoyer said. "Republicans and their media have successfully sent out a message that the Congress has failed."
Democrats cling to a hope that voters in the last two weeks before the election will come to a more favorable view of how the party handled health care and the economy.
But in taking on issues for the history books, Democrats have failed on some matters close to the hearts of allies whose energy is vital in an election. Legislation making it easier to unionize workplaces is stalled, Hispanics are still pressing for an overhaul of the immigration system and environmental groups want action on climate change.
Democratic leaders put off action for nearly two years on preventing a massive tax increase come Jan. 1, when the Bush-era tax cuts run out. And they couldn't even put a budget together this year. But it's not what Congress didn't accomplish the past two years, it's what it did do that seems to have voters most riled.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press.
Click Martha's photo to go to the audioOh, that'll work for sure dude; now lets go surfing....The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs. Jobs for every American is doomed to failure because of modern automation and production. We ought to recognize it and create an income-maintenance system so every single American has the dignity and the wherewithal for shelter, basic food, and medical care. I'm talking about welfare for all.
Rival blasts Barney Frank’s swanky free jet ride
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, immersed in one of the toughest political fights of his career, took a free private jet to the Virgin Islands courtesy of a Maine congresswoman’s billionaire fiance — whose company received a $200 million federal bailout, the Herald has learned.
Frank, who’s facing feisty Republican challenger Sean Bielat, flew to the tropical paradise for a vacation in 2009 on a $25 million jet owned by Paloma Partners honcho S. Donald Sussman, the fiance of U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). Paloma Securities — a subsidiary of Sussman’s Greenwich, Conn.-based hedge fund — received $200 million in 2009 as part of the $180 billion federal bailout of troubled insurance giant AIG, records show.
Frank, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, said his partner, Jim Ready, lives in Pingree’s district and the couples are “personal friends.”
“She and I have become friendly and they invited us to the Virgin Islands and I checked with House ethics (officials) and they gave it the OK,” Frank said. “It was purely personal.”
Republican National Committee spokesman Parish Braden said: “Barney Frank’s acceptance of a lavish gift from a hedge fund manager, an industry he is responsible for regulating, is a troubling conflict of interest that raises serious questions about his judgment.”
Bielat added: “Typical. Barney keeps showing how career politicians work — they use our dollars for their favors. It may be legal, but it’s wrong and that’s why we need a change.”
Frank called the GOP criticism “nonsense” and said he has backed legislation to crack down on hedge funds.
“I’ve never talked with him about any favorable treatment,” he said of Sussman. “I voted to raise his taxes. That’s one of the most backwards things I’ve ever heard. I’ve taken the anti-hedge fund position.”
Frank, who voted for the bailout in October 2008, took the trip around Christmas 2009. He reported the trip in required House financial filings and valued the flight at $1,500. He originally listed the trip vaguely as “first class round trip travel by private aircraft” in a congressional filing in May. In July, he amended the report to show he traveled from Portland, Maine, to the Virgin Islands. He called the discrepancy a “clerical error.”
Sussman, a huge Democratic campaign donor with homes in Maine and Connecticut, lives in St. John, Virgin Islands. Spokespersons for Sussman and Pingree declined to comment. Pingree also is facing criticism from the Maine GOP for using Sussman’s jet.
From Jeff Dunetz writing Yid With Lid comes this illuminating bit:
Folks who watched CBS Face the Nation yesterday were greeted by a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, host Bob Schieffer taking a contrary position to one of the Administration’s talking points. Talking to White House political director David Axelrod about the President’s charge that the Chamber of Commerce is using foreign donations to support GOP candidates, he asked:SCHIEFFER: Now, I want to ask you about that because the New York Times looked into the Chamber specifically and said the Chamber really isn’t putting foreign money into the campaign. That it does charge its foreign affiliates dues that bring in less than $100,000 a year. A lot of organizations, including labor unions, do that. But the Chamber has an annual budget of $200 million. Along with that it keeps these foreign dues separate. They do spend heavily in politics — $25 million so far. They expect to spend $50 million. But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mr. Axelrod. Do you have any evidence that it’s anything other than peanuts?AXELROD: Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob? The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that but they won’t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. That’s at the core of the problem here. What we’ve seen in part because of a loophole that the Supreme Court allowed earlier this year, we now see tens of millions of dollars being spent by the chamber and a number of organizations some of which just cropped up. Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove run one of them. Tens of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors under benign names like the American cross roads fund. They’re spending heavily in all of these elections. One race in Colorado, there are six different organizations running negative ads against the Democratic senator there, Michael Bennet. No one knows where the money is coming from. My question back to you and for your next guest is, why not simply disclose where this money is coming from? And then all of these questions will be answered.In other words Axelrod and the Democratic Party pulled this charge out of nowhere, threw it against the wall and are praying it sticks, or as Schieffer said;I guess I would put it this way. If the only charge three weeks into the election that the Democrats can make is that somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign, is that the best you can do?
Soros: I Can’t Stop a Republican ‘Avalanche’
By SEWELL CHANGeorge Soros, the billionaire financier who was an energetic Democratic donor in the last several election cycles but is sitting this one out, is not feeling optimistic about Democratic prospects.
“I made an exception getting involved in 2004,” Mr. Soros, 80, said in a brief interview Friday at a forum sponsored by the Bretton Woods Committee, which promotes understanding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
“And since I didn’t succeed in 2004, I remained engaged in 2006 and 2008. But I’m basically not a party man. I’d just been forced into that situation by what I considered the excesses of the Bush administration.”
Mr. Soros, a champion of liberal causes, has been directing his money to groups that work on health care and the environment, rather than electoral politics. Asked if the prospect of Republican control of one or both houses of Congress concerned him, he said: “It does, because I think they are pushing the wrong policies, but I’m not in a position to stop it. I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche.”
