Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

[c1ue]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

And why are you going to be watching spending? I know RP just raised another 6 million in the last two weeks. I don't think RP is an underdog and I think he and Romney will be the two to pick from.

The biggest spender wins 94% of all elections in the US.

Ron Paul's 3rd place finish - if he were in fact just a small time spender which well outperformed his spending - would demonstrate viability should he be able to ramp up spending to get his message out.

On the other hand, if RP spent the 2nd or 3rd most among the Republican caucus, his 3rd place showing demonstrates that he doesn't have any form of unique appeal.

I'd also note that Iowa spending in 2012 is far, far below 2008 levels though at least part of that is due to Iowa's shift into very early January.

[don]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

"Follow the money" applies equally to Paul . . .

Take, for instance, the 'coal miner's' son . . .

Santorum Becomes Millionaire After Senate Loss

By Heidi Przybyla and Julie Bykowicz - Jan 5, 2012

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum describes himself on the campaign trail as a frugal man of faith and limited means.

“I come from a little different background than most Republicans,” he said at a Jan. 2 town-hall meeting in Newton, Iowa, where he recalled playing as a child outside the coal mines in which his grandfather toiled.

Yet Santorum, 53, has come a long way from those gritty early days to the top tier of the Republican presidential primary race after coming in second to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.

Since his 2006 re-election defeat, the former Pennsylvania lawmaker has gone from being one of the poorer members of the U.S. Senate to earning $1.3 million between January 2010 and August 2011. In 2007, he spent $2 million to buy a 5,000-square foot home in Great Falls, Virginia, according to property records.

Santorum’s financial rise was powered by consulting contracts with fuel producer Consol Energy Inc. (CNX), faith advocacy group Clapham Group and American Continental Group, a Washington consultancy, as well as media engagements.


“If he’s claiming he’s not an insider, this is the thing that insiders do -- after public office they cash in,” said Kent Cooper, a campaign finance expert and former Federal Elections Commission assistant staff director.
Stock Options

Outside of his employment contracts, Santorum’s greatest financial gain came from $395,414 in director fees and stock options he listed in a recent financial disclosure.

The fees and options came from King of Prussia-based Universal Health Services Inc. (UHS), a publicly traded health-care management company that was sued in 2010 by the federal government for alleged Medicaid fraud.
Santorum spokesman Matt Beynon didn’t respond to a request for comment.

When Santorum left office after the 2006 defeat, he was earning a $165,200 congressional salary with $32,245 in outside income from book royalties.

His assets, primarily investment funds, were valued at between $20,000 and $125,000.

“For the Senate, once you get below a couple million, you’re one of the less wealthy,” said Cooper.

Home in Suburbs

After leaving office, Santorum signed on with a number of outside companies and organizations, bringing in $1.3 million from January 2010 through Aug. 2 of last year, according to disclosure forms. His home in the Washington Virginia suburbs has four bedrooms, five bathrooms and sits on five acres of land.

Santorum listed his assets, including IRA accounts, education savings plans and stock as being worth between $339,000 and $1.3 million. His five rental properties in State College, Pennsylvania, are worth another $500,000 to $1.25 million, according to the disclosure report that allows wide ranges for revealing income and asset values.

He earned $217,385 in income as a senior fellow for the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington and $346,152 for columns in the Philadelphia Inquirer and appearances on News Corp. (NWSA)’s Fox and Salem Radio in California. Smaller amounts came from the company consulting agreements, with Consol Energy paying the most at $142,500, during the period from 2010 to Aug. 2, 2011.

He was also hired in 2007 to work in the Washington office of Pittsburgh law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott (1283L) and left in May 2008, according to firm spokeswoman Karen Come. She didn’t disclose a reason for his departure.

Biggest Gain

The $395,414 Santorum brought in from his relationship with Universal Health is his biggest post-Congress monetary gain, other than his employment contracts, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.

Fellow board member Tony Pantaleoni, a lawyer, said Santorum had a prior relationship with Alan Miller, Universal Health’s chief executive, and that he “came with a lot of knowledge about the health industry,” including regulatory issues in Washington.

“I can recall many times issues would come up and he’d say that ‘you have to be careful of this particular person with these views,’” he said, referring to lawmakers. Pantaleoni said Santorum’s compensation was in line with other board members.

Acute Care Hospitals

Universal Health owns and operates acute care hospitals, behavioral health centers as well as ambulatory centers all across the nation and in Puerto Rico.

According to former Pennsylvania Representative Phil English, a Republican who served with Santorum, the senator has a long history of health-care advocacy. His father was a psychologist in the Veterans Administration system and Santorum made his entry into the political world running on the issue.

A supporter of private health savings accounts, he ran against former Senator Harris Wofford, a Democrat who supported President Bill Clinton’s failed health-care plan. Santorum received $3 million from the health industry during his congressional career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Blue Cross Blue Shield is his fourth largest lifetime donor, at $114,790, and Cigna is the 10th, with $68,610.

Santorum was appointed to the UHS board of directors after his 2006 loss.

Fraudulent Claims

The Justice Department accused the company in a 2010 lawsuit of submitting fraudulent reimbursement claims under the Medicaid health-care program for the poor. The government said the company falsely claimed to have provided inpatient psychiatric services to children at a detention facility in Marion, Virginia. Pantaleoni said the case has been settled.

The company has also risked losing certification to receive Medicare reimbursement for medical centers that it owns.

According to a release on the UHS website, the Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center in Riverside County regained their certification in November after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services threatened to terminate their provider agreement in June 2010. The state of California had also threatened to revoke the group’s hospital license.

It wasn’t the first time UHS risked losing certification for one of its facilities. In late September 2008, CMS terminated participation in Medicare for the Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital in Kansas City. It’s a decision that led to a court appeal and settlement requiring Two Rivers to retain an outside monitor for six months.

Preparing for Run

Santorum resigned from the board June 15, 2011, as he prepared for a presidential run.

Santorum, who has a law degree and master’s of business administration, was first elected to the U.S. House in 1990 from a suburban district outside Pittsburgh. He unseated Democratic Representative Doug Walgren in part by questioning his loyalty to the district because he had moved his family to Washington.

After moving his family to Leesburg, Virginia, Santorum was plagued by his own residency questions. Tuition Costs

Santorum continued to maintain his home in Penn Hills, Pennsylvania, while charging the school district in Pennsylvania $100,000 in tuition costs for the online education of his children through the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School from 2001 to 2004, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The state of Pennsylvania repaid the district $55,000, according to the paper.

The Leesburg home also figured in a 2006 ethics complaint filed by Melanie Sloan, a former prosecutor and executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

According to Sloan, Santorum received a preferential $500,000 mortgage on the home from Philadelphia Trust Company, where he didn’t hold any bank accounts. Officers at the company had contributed to Santorum’s re-election campaign.

The Senate Committee on Ethics never responded to Sloan’s complaint and Santorum left office shortly thereafter after losing his seat.

To contact the reporters on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net Julie Bykowicz in Washington at jbykowicz@bloomberg.net

seems like just one of the boyz to me . . .

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

I believe Dylan Ratigan noted that the person who receives the most money wins 94% of the time not the one who spends the most money?

[c1ue]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

I believe Dylan Ratigan noted that the person who receives the most money wins 94% of the time not the one who spends the most money?

Seriously, are you trying to say there is no link between receiving the most money and spending it?

Sure, there are some examples like Meg Whitman where she received less money AND spent more money, but I guarantee the vast majority of the time, the two values are directly linked.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

No I was stating that just because you receive the most money doesnt mean you spend the most money.....

Obama received 730 million from wall street and McCain got 340 million or so.

Just correcting you

[DSpencer]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

Definitely worth the read on all of those. There is something I see repeatedly that bothers me about the "99 percent"

Courtesy of Matt Taibbi, we learn that the sentiment among the super-rich towards the rest of America is often one of contempt rather than noblesse; Bernard Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, says about the views of the 99 percent: “Who gives a crap about some imbecile?”

I find this very misleading. I don't know the actual question posed to him, but I found this phrasing elsewhere:

Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus, on being targeted by protesters: “Who gives a crap about some imbecile? Are you kidding me?”

I find that kind of journalism lacking in integrity.

What a relatively small group of people say does not automatically equal "the views of the 99 percent".

Just because I'm an American doesn't mean that every opinion I hold is the "views of the American people".

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

Taibbi has been known in the past for his dishonest writings and has been caught many times. Probably the reason he writes for rollingstone. Obviously he has an agenda.

[don]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

Taibbi seems to be a blend of investigative reporter and muckraker. He has a nice way with hyperbole, i. e., the Vampire Squid . . .

[c1ue]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

No I was stating that just because you receive the most money doesnt mean you spend the most money.....

Obama received 730 million from wall street and McCain got 340 million or so.

Just correcting you

Still thoroughly unclear what your point is. Barring an actualt presentation of data, your "point" is irrelevant.

Obama received AND spent more money.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

C1ue, I am purposely trying to irritate you with my previous statements on the nuances of your statement. I only do this because of our previous debate on the Austrian economics post.

Fun Fun!

[cjppjc]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

C1ue, I am purposely trying to irritate you with my previous statements on the nuances of your statement. I only do this because of our previous debate on the Austrian economics post.

Fun Fun!

Well cut it out. The last thing we need is an irritated C1ue.

[c1ue]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

C1ue, I am purposely trying to irritate you with my previous statements on the nuances of your statement. I only do this because of our previous debate on the Austrian economics post.

Fun Fun!

I'm not in the least bit irritated.

It actually amuses me when people make fools of themselves.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

C1ue hahaha you are so funny. I made a fool of myself? C1ue really you are so smug it is hilarious.

You really think you know best, that you know more than anyone else and that your policy prescriptions should be enacted. You are no better than any other career politician who thinks (knows) that he must get into office so that his ideas can be implemented on the poor American citizens who can't govern themselves.

It is rather sad and it is because of people like you that we are in our current predicament. I have met so many people like you in life and I always feel sorry for them.

That is all I ever have to say to you anymore on this site C1ue.

[c1ue]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

You really think you know best, that you know more than anyone else and that your policy prescriptions should be enacted. You are no better than any other career politician who thinks (knows) that he must get into office so that his ideas can be implemented on the poor American citizens who can't govern themselves.

I have my opinions, and am willing to explore others.

You, however, seem to think other people's views can substitute for your own thoughts.

As for Americans governing themselves, it would seem quite clear that there is a huge problem in governance in America.

Are you trying to tell me that those in power and the system are anything but American? Even I don't go so far as to call banksters un-American.

In a real sense, they're doing exactly what they should do under the 'free market'.

[WildspitzE]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

On the other hand, if RP spent the 2nd or 3rd most among the Republican caucus, his 3rd place showing demonstrates that he doesn't have any form of unique appeal.

Or it could be that he needed to spend more to get his message out (to the traditional media demographic) given how he was being treated by the media. I think that your conjecture would be more valid following NH and SC, given how much coverage he is getting as of late.

Also, the amounts that each of the following demographic classifications contribute (vs to other candidates) does point to unique appeals imo (albeit military and young voters overlap quite a bit): (a) the military, (b) independents, and (c) young voters. Can he capitalize on these? Well, that's the billion dollar question.