Concerning "blind trusts" that congresscritters

have when they take office. It's been found that they do very well, better than average in their stock holdings. I believe that when they take office, all their stock should be sold and put into a savings account, cd's or a benign place until they leave office. That way they will be making no laws that affect their holdings...unless it's to raise interest rates on savings accounts, which would benefit all who have managed to acquire a savings account. It's a travesty that they can make laws to increase their net worth and never mind the people who put them in office.

.

A blind trust is supposed to have its holdings kept secret from the trustee. Now, while anyone whose holdings go into the trust knows what he has in there initially, the wheelings and dealings are not supposed to be ordered by the trustee, and what happens in the trust is supposed to be unknown to the trustee.

Of course, if you're Bill Frist, you know what's in your trust, you place buy and sell orders, and you work on legislation that directly affects your holdings. Then you deny any conflict of interest, whine about how everyone is politicizing your conflict of interest, then finally turning your trust into a truly blind one.

Because, as we all know (say it with me), it's okay if you're a Republican.

that most investments are not wheeled and dealt (deeled?) for tax purposes as much as any other, so if you know what you have going in, most of the stuff will be the same 10 years later.

all of the stock holdings are put into ONE blind trust and managed by the GAO and ALL OF THE PROFITS earned from the stocks are contributed (wtih no tax write off for anyone) to the nation's Soc. Sec. or V.A. Hospital funds?

AND..the individual congress person can't take their stocks out of the blind trust until FIVE YEARS after they leave office?

The only problem I see with this is that many congresspeople use their own money (like Dem. Sen. Maria Cantwell) gained from stock options to support their campaigns. So it might have the effect of increasing special interest currying for election funds, absent other election reforms (like spending limits) being imposed simultaneously.