Department of Financial Security

by matt at 6:15 am on September 28th, 2004 in Bush Man Date

many_faces_ridge.jpg
For the last few years, when the name of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge came up, the default accusation was always “incompetent” or “political hack.” Well, it’s time to to add “terrorism profiteer” to the rotation.

In a recent financial disclosure document, Ridge reported holdings in:

• Microsoft
• Unisys
• General Electric
• Sprint
• Raytheon
• Baxter International
• Merck
• Pfizer
• Oracle

What do these companies have in common? They all hold contracts with the Department of Homeland Security. While it is encouraging that Ridge can at least put two and two together to figure out that these companies will be ringing up some sales, it seems he’s never heard of a blind trust or anything else involving ethics.

The kicker:

In response to a late afternoon telephone inquiry, DHS spokesman Brian Roehrkasse first said the department did not have enough time to answer questions about the disclosure form. Pressed further, he shouted an expletive to a reporter and hung up.
Later, in a second telephone conversation, Roehrkasse said, “I don’t know where we are in the process. I don’t know . . . I can’t validate any information you’ve got,” and repeated a string of expletives.

Again, Roehrkasse is the spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security.

Maybe the President should have allowed Ridge to step down when he admitted that he wanted to move to the private sector to make more money.

Or maybe “getting rich inside the government” is the new “getting rich outside the government.”

After all, say it with me…”It’s OK if you’re a Republican.”

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. jenett.radio on 30 Sep 2004 at 10:22 am

    How disturbing!
    Ridge Reports Investments in Homeland Security Contractors.  “Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge had…

Comments

  1. cali_ wrote:

    not to defend this hack, but are these direct stock holdings, or are they part of a mutual fund? i guess it doesn’t really matter in the short term, especially given the defensive response of the spokesperson, but i could see owning some shares of these companies if they are in a larger, broad mutual fund. but then again, i admittedly don’t know the rules in this case.

  2. matt wrote:

    If the holdings were through mutual funds, he would only need to report the fund, not the individual stocks in the fund.

    And the main point is that someone with budgetary or regulatory oversight should have either no holdings in their area of influence or the holdings should be in a blind trust.

  3. cali_ wrote:

    agreed. if he needed to possess these stocks, the blind trust would be the honest way to go.