Quote:
According to factcheck.org the President does indeed own part of a timber company. Oops.


Quote:
Of course, that wouldn't help him any, since he doesn't read.



factcheck.org sure is handy.
In fact, here are some more facts I learned from there.

The $84 dollars which Kerry mentioned Bush made from timber were actually from his interest in an oil and gas concern. The concern in question branched out into timber the next year.

So they're both wrong:
  • Bush did NOT make $84 from timber. (Kerry's error.)
  • Bush does indirectly have a stake in a timber company. (Bush's error.)


Just to play devil's advocate here, I don't think it is a particular mark of idiocy for him not to know this. And here is why. I definitely don't consider myself one of those people who have so much money sitting around that I don't what to do with it (or what I'm currently doing with it). Yet several years ago, I was shocked and saddened to learn that I inadvertently owned some MSFT stock -- something which goes COMPLETELY against my principles. How did this tragedy occur? Simple. I have some of my paycheck diverted into a 401(k) (For those across the pond - this is an American retirement plan which allows you to avoid paying taxes on some of your retirement savings until you actually retire. In the meantime it compounds tax free. Almost everyone here who works for a company with more than 50 employees has access to one. And since they have been hyping them for 20+ years, almost anyone with any sense chunks a few bucks in from time to time.) Anyway, part of the limitation with these is that you usually have only a very limited choice of investments. Unfortunately, most of the funds have at least a percentage point or two allocated to propping up Bill and Steve's little company in Seattle. And some tech funds might have 20% or more!

Ergo, I own a little bit of Microsoft. I sure as hell don't like it. But if I want to invest in any technology funds whatsoever, that's the breaks.

And in general, if you own a couple of mutual funds you probably don't know where your money really is until you get the quarterly reports. Then you can find out where you money WAS... last quarter; of course some of it has now moved on into other investments you'll find out about next quarter.

Anyway, these are only the problems of a poor working slob. Namely, me.
Just think how hard it would be to keep track if I were, say, a multi-millionaire politician who had someone else managing a lot of my money so I could focus on other things.
(Or someone like Alan Greenspan -- who turns over control of most of his fortune to someone else so that there will be no conflict of interest when he makes rate-change decisions!)

Here's another interesting fact from factcheck.org.
Cheney actually went to great lengths to divest himself of all Halliburton money before he took office. Even to the point of paying nearly $15,000 for an insurance policy to cover his deferred compensation from 1999 should the company go bankrupt.

I.e., just so he couldn't be said to have some kind of interest even in keeping the company solvent! Let alone in keeping it profitable. Oddly, he never mentions this to the press.

Furthermore, ALL of Cheney's future Halliburton stock option profits go to charity. 40% to U of Wyoming, 40% to George Washington Med School, 20% to a charity for low-income students. (Irrevocably. In perpetuity. Follow the link.) Strangely, he never mentions this to the press though he is regularly slammed for his Halliburton connection.

However, I think I know why. As you'll see if you follow the factcheck link, the process of separating himself is complicated and eminently unsuited for soundbites. He is probably trying to avoid the Kerry mistake of "talking too much." Of course, he is also a taciturn Wyomingan (Wyomingite?) and probably thinks that it's unbecoming to ever discuss one's money in public in almost any context.

(Random stream of consciousness: has anyone else been surprised that in both debates Kerry has made a point to mention that he, Bush, and the news anchor are all super-wealthy? Hmmm, perhaps he's trying to shoot down Bush's "just a normal guy" image and defuse any potential criticism of his own "silver spoon" lifestyle. But it just doesn't seem like an effective tactic. It comes across more like gloating. I mean, let's face it, it's pretty hard for any politician to play the "class hatred" card without looking a bit hypocritical. There aren't any poor senators. And only a handful of "wealth disadvantaged" representatives. I'm sure someone will post the link to the page of the net worth of all US congresspeople. My google fu is bad tonight. All I could find was this socialist link which might be questionable. If true, the Democrats are significantly richer than the Republicans....)