Dave Bruderly for Congress

These are the thoughts of Dave Bruderly Supporters. Dave is a Democratic Congressional Candidate for 6th district of Florida.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Stock Market Performs Better When Democrats Are In Power....Ka-Ching!

Surprise: Dems are better for rallies
Despite 'market friendly' Republican policies, stocks rise more and volatility dips under Democrats.

January 22, 2004: 2:11 PM EST
By Alexandra Twin, CNN/Money Staff Writer

Plenty of Wall Streeters are Republicans. The party's policies are seen as better for big business and therefore better for the stock market.

"Democrats are seen as being pro-regulatory, and more willing to enact laws against Wall Street and laws against CEOs," said Don Luskin, chief investment officer at Trend Macrolytics.

But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power. This discrepancy was explored recently in a study by two finance professors at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov.

According to their paper, entitled, "The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market" and published in the October issue of the Journal of Finance, stock market returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office.
The study also looked at how the index responded under both Democrats and Republicans, using two portfolios tracked by the Center for Research in Security Prices, a research outfit affiliated with the University of Chicago's business school.

The "value-weighted portfolio" ranks all the stocks in the index according to their total market value, whereas in the "equal-weighted portfolio" the stocks are all ranked the same.
On average, value-weighted portfolios returned 9 percent more under Democrats than Republicans during the 72 year period, while equal-weighted portfolios returned 16 percent more under Democrats.

"I think plenty on Wall Street would be pretty shocked to hear that," said Barry Ritholtz, a market analyst at Maxim Group. The study examined a variety of reasons that might have caused this discrepancy. One particularly interesting finding was that markets seemed to show more surprise in reaction to economic or stock-related decisions made by Democratic administrations.

"It thus seems that the difference in realized returns can be attributed to the market being systematically positively surprised by Democratic policies," the professors wrote.
According to their study, the difference in stock returns becomes gradually obvious through the course of a presidency, rather than in the period immediately surrounding an election.

Volatility down under Dems, too

Critics say that if the Democrats should win the presidential election in November, the almost year-old stock rally could be in trouble, largely because many of the Democratic candidates have vowed to scale back some or all of the $1.3 trillion in tax cuts that President Bush enacted in 2003.

In addition, critics fear that a Democratic administration would make markets more volatile. This is because of extensive research showing that gross domestic product growth is slower during Republican presidential mandates and that higher interest rates are more common during Democratic mandates.

However, volatility is actually lower during Democratic presidencies, according to both the UCLA study and another recent study by two political science professors -- David Leblang of the University of Colorado and Bumba Mukherjee of Florida State University.

The study -- which tracks stock market returns since the first day the Dow Jones industrial average was calculated in 1896 through the fall of 2001 -- shows that market volatility decreases during Democratic administrations.

The paper argues that the expectation that inflation rates will rise under left-wing presidential administrations does indeed have an impact on trading, as older studies have suggested, but in a different way than those studies proposed.

"Our model predicts that rational expectations for higher interest rates under left-wing administrations decreases demand for stocks among traders," the professors write. "This decrease in demand leads to a decline in stock price volatility not only during the incumbency of left-wing governments, but also when traders expect the left-wing party to win elections."

Alternately, the statistics also show that expectations of lower inflation under right wing administrations make the market more volatile. This is because traders increase their inflow of capital and investment into the stock market when they believe the interest-rate environment is more friendly for stocks. More money at work translates into more volatility in the markets.
The study showed this trend was consistent regardless of whether a right wing administration was in office or whether traders merely expected the Republican party to win the presidential election.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

The War We Never Hear About

Jesse Ventura Speaks About War.
Windows Media File

Click Here

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Bush's Hometown Newspaper Endorses Kerry

Kerry Will Restore American Dignity

Publisher's 2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement
West Texas Iconoclast
9-28-2004 - Crawford, Texas

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.

• Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.

• Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.

• Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.

• Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.

• Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and

• Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

More...Click Here

Monday, September 27, 2004

Jimmy Carter says Florida still has voting problems

President Jimmy Carter published this piece in Washington Post about Florida fair election prospects in 2004. It was published on September 27th.

Washington Post Op-Ed: Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Ironically there was a forgery story that would've implicated the Bush administration about Iraq. But CBS bumped it in favor of the Texas Air National Guard story.

MSNBC - The Story That Didn't Run

Monday, September 20, 2004

Censorship Comes to Public Radio

I recently viewed the disturbing documentary, "Out-Foxed", where innovative journalistic practices in our mainstream broadcast media are scrutinized by seasoned media experts like Walter Cronkite who's incriminating opinions are supported by former FOX News anchors and employees.

I became equally disturbed when I learned that our District 6, Congressional candidates' remarks were being censored from the WUFT/Classic 89 delayed broadcast of the League of Women Voters (LWV) candidate forum held in Gainesville, Florida on September 18th.

Dave Bruderly, Congressman Cliff Stearns and write-in candidate, Newell O'Brien were invited to participate in this year's LWV forum for congressional candidates, but Stearns declined to attend.

When I heard the LWV staff announce a "change of rules" to exclude candadates' remarks, I went across the room to WUFT's, Bill Beckett who confirmed that Bruderly's and O'Brien's remarks would be censored from the Classic 89 re-broadcast. When asked why, Mr. Beckett replied that this was a "journalistic decision".

Mr. Stearns first declined to attend the LWV forum in 2002, and instead sent a surrogate to read a prepared statement. That was the Congressman's decision -- a decision that he made of his own free will citing a previous commitment. I recall that Congresswoman Brown and her opponent attended the same forum and their remarks were broadcast by Classic 89.

Classic 89 made a decision then not to broadcast Dave Bruderly's remarks citing Classic 89's equal access policy. As a result, only the people attending were given the opportunity to hear objective, uncensored and open public discussion of the issues. I believed then that a decision to edit out portions of an open forum was improper and a violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the law and the Constitution.

If a candidate's job or some other commitment does not allow them to personally participate in a candidate forum that would be unfortunate. However, once given the opportunity for equal access, it is discriminatory to censor one or more candidates if the other candidate elects to not participate in person. Mr. Stearns' standing as the incumbent Congressman gives him no special privileges with respect to the Fairness Doctrine or Equal Access. In fact, he has paid staff who are capable and knowledgeable and who have represented him at more than ten public candidate forums during the 2002 and 2004 campaigns, including the LWV forum in 2002 and at least four other candidate forums that were broadcast live on the radio with a surrogate standing in for Mr. Stearns. In addition, Dave Bruderly participated in several forums that were taped for re-broadcast on public television. Failure of Mr. Stearns to personally participate has never been an issue in these other candidate forums - only at Classic 89.

It discriminates between audiences and individuals when some people are privileged to hear Bruderly and O'Brien's live remarks, while a journalistic decision made by Classic 89 blocks that same information from reaching an audience that they have a regulatory obligation to serve.

The Media Bureau of the FCC states "Under the First Amendment and the Communications Act, the FCC cannot tell stations how to select material for news programs and we cannot prohibit the broadcasting of an opinion on any subject." The Media Bureau further states that "When a qualified candidate for public office has been permitted to use a station, the Communications Act requires the station to "afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office." The Act also states that the station "shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by the candidate."

Under the law and equal access policy Classic 89's only obligation is to give all candidates the opportunity to participate. If one candidate chooses not to appear at the LWV forum in person and instead sends a representative, it is a violation of the Communications Act to censor the broadcast. If Classic 89 elects not to broadcast the session that would be a matter of LWV or Classic 89 policy, not a matter of the equal time provision of the law.

I must protest the policy decision that the LWV and Classic 89 consistently decide on this matter. If all qualified candidates are invited to participate in a candidate forum and one or more of the candidates decides not to participate in a candidate forum, Classic 89 does not have the right to censor the broadcast. In my opinion, such a policy decision would violate the Communications Act, not to mention the fundamental principles of free speech under the First Amendment on which this Country was founded.

Allowing one candidate to dictate terms of participation in a LWV candidate forum makes a mockery of their effort to provide this essential public service.

This is not a trivial issue; two years ago the Congressional debate centered on the question of the duty of the Congress to declare war and levy taxes; two years later nearly 1,000 American military personnel have died and thousands more have been severely injured and maimed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed and maimed. Once again, the LWV has allowed one candidate to censor political discussion and debate on these important matters.

It is well documented that Mr. Stearns does not approve of federal support for public broadcasting and that he has made many efforts to reduce federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He has even made attempts to censor certain activities created and sponsored by public broadcasting as well as the availability of books in the public libraries. It appears our LWV chapter is willing to aid the incumbents efforts, and at the cost or eroding their own credibility as a fair and objective host of important political forums that are supposed to be about informing the voting public.

The LWV will surely cease to be relevant if elected officials are allowed to avoid LWV forums, deny other candidates equal access, and isolate themselves from public debate about the important issues in order to conceal their lackluster performance in office.

Saturday, September 18, 2004

Bush Administration Riddled with Incompetence - Can't Get the Job Done

Study Finds Bush Administration Obstructs and Weakens Regulation Across Agencies, Withdraws Over 200 Proposed Rules and Fails to Complete Over 70% of Target Actions

WASHINGTON - September 15 - An analysis of four key federal agencies charged with safeguarding the public's air, water, food, health, transportation and workplaces reveals consistent and widespread obstruction, neglect and weakening of protections. The report attributes the pattern to a pro-corporate bias of the Bush administration and appointed agency heads favoring narrow special interests over the public good.

In "The Bush Regulatory Record: A Pattern of Failure," OMB Watch analysts document the Bush administration's inaction and obstruction since taking office:

* EPA has withdrawn 90 agenda items, most addressing clean air and water, and in the first half of 2004 failed to achieve 73 percent of benchmark items it scheduled for completion.

* FDA has withdrawn 62 agenda items, including one to track contaminated blood, and in the first half of 2004 failed to achieve 70 percent of benchmark items it scheduled for completion.

* NHTSA has withdrawn 31 auto safety agenda items and, in the first half of 2004, failed to achieve 71 percent of the benchmark items scheduled for completion.

* OSHA has withdrawn 24 agenda items, including one to protect workers from exposure to tuberculosis, and in the first half of 2004 it failed to advance 75 percent of benchmark items scheduled for action. It also eliminated data collection on musculoskeletal disorders.

Click Here for the full report

Friday, September 17, 2004

Cliff Stearns and Newt Gingrich want to kill funding for Public Television

At the center of this controversy is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides significant federal funding for public broadcasting projects. Two Bush appointees to the board last year, Cheryl Halpern and Gay Hart Gaines, are big donors to the Republican Party, and do not hide their political agenda. As Common Cause noted in December 2003, Gaines raised money for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga), and chaired his political action committee, GOPAC: "At the same time that Gaines was raising money for Gingrich's GOPAC, Gingrich was pushing Congress (Cliff Stearns) to cut all federal funds to public TV."

Click Here for the entire article

Dave in the News

Preview: Our "Unconstitutional" Patriot Act.

ACLU Documentary release - See the Movie Preview

Click Here