Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI, IRS Raid Home of Sen. Ted Stevens

Posted by kdawson on from the longest-serving-republican dept.

A while back we discussed the corruption investigation aimed at Alaska Sen. Ted "series of tubes" Stevens. A number of readers sent us word that the home of Sen. Stevens was raided earlier today by agents of the FBI and the IRS. The focus of the raid was a remodeling project at Stevens's home and the involvement of VECO, an oil company.

16 of 539 comments (clear)

  1. The same man... by Bananatree3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    who had the bridge to nowheres built. But since this article doesn't pertain to that, I won't go there...

    1. Re:The same man... by hax0r_this · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually just so we're clear, the so called bridges to nowhere weren't built.

      Also describing them as "bridges to nowhere" is somewhat like describing the first Transcontinental Railroad as a "railroad to nowhere". One of the bridges in question was probably a pointless waste of money, the other would have connected a city of 300,000 people and skyrocketing property prices to a large area of undeveloped land.

      It may also be instructive to note that Ben Stevens (the son of Ted Stevens, and another alaskan politician) owned a (miniscule, we're talking several acres out of hundreds of thousands, but still) portion of the aforementioned undeveloped land.
      >Oh, also I'm from Anchorage, not just some guy who sits around all day reading about political issues in irrelevant semi-states.

    2. Re:The same man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The bridge to "no where" was never built and probably never will be. However no one realizes the bridge to "no where" is in fact a bridge to connect the city of Ketchikan Alaska to the local airport. The people of Ketchikan currently have to take a ferry to get to the airport. The bridge would be very useful for the town. My wife's family lives there and I visit there quite a bit.

    3. Re:The same man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      And by the way, do you know why it is going to cost $315 million for a bridge going across a 2000 ft waterway? Because the people didn't want it to affect cruise ships using the waterway (even though it would only cause them to go about 30 miles to circumnavigate the island) and because the planners refuse to use the shortest path to the airport. In any reasonable place they wouldn't decide to build a suspension bridge. They would use a truss bridge or a cantilever bridge with narrow spans for $5-$10 million and tell the damn cruise ships to go around. That is, unless the federal government was paying for it.

    4. Re:The same man... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      The first transcontinental railroad was never a "railroad to nowhere". It was built twenty years after millions of people had already moved to the west coast of the United States.

      I agree that the transcontinental railroad wasn't a "railroad to nowhere". But it wasn't built 20 years after "millions of people had already moved to the west coast of the United States.". Fewer than half a million people moved to the West Coast during the emigration period from about 1840-1860.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:The same man... by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh, this is stupid. The airport is on the Anchorage side, ie, the developed side. People already have access. And there's nothing on the other side. See this map. If there is a need for people to cross that river, then put in a ferry or a cheaper bridge. It definitely is a bridge to nowhere.

    6. Re:The same man... by __aajwxe560 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And why would a family starting out need 1.5 acre tract of land in an urban area of 260k people (http://anchorage.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm)? I don't claim to know anything about the geography of the area, but a quick search of realtor.com shows that anyone can buy a .25 acre piece of land for an average of $25k, or half an acre for $22k-$50k. As a middle income family, you can apparently get yourself a starter home of 1200sq feet for around $180k ($100k for a starter condo). If you want to consider moving to the 'burbs, just like any other city, it of course gets much cheaper.

      Now lets compare this to say, many other American cities. Anchorage has an "Owner-occupied housing units" rate of 60%, which is among the highest in the country (again, areaconnect.com/statistics.htm says that Tucson is 53%, Oklahoma City is close at 59%, Las Vegas is also 59%, Orlando is 40.7%, Boston is 32%, Syracuse is 40%, Dallas is 43%, Los Angeles is 38%, Manchester NH is 46%). So this tells me that people are having less of a hard time achieving home ownership in Anchorage than just about any other part of the country.

      I'm not trying to flame you as I am sure many people there go through the same struggles as elsewhere, but just trying to put everything into a bit of perspective. Anchorage isn't the $40k housing market some people in the lower 48 might expect, but it seems easier to achieve personal home ownership there than most other urban cities in the country. I suspect if you start to consider suburbs, just like any other city, the numbers skew much differently.

    7. Re:The same man... by skarphace · · Score: 2, Informative

      The slump at the end of the nineties and into the early 2000's was caused by the Dot-Com bubble bursting, and the recovery since then has been largely the result of GWB's and the GOP's economic policies.
      (read: war)

      The economic 'recovery' can be attributed to the wars and all the government contracts going out to the various companies that support it. This includes arms makers, construction, fire crews, mercenaries, and all that garbage that comes with it. And to top it off, while the economy is doing great, we've had an increasing distance between the lower and upper classes. So it's all really about perspective. Yes, as a whole, the country is doing 'great'. However, an increasing amount of the population sees nothing from it.
      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    8. Re:The same man... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, my understanding is that it's fundamentally about reducing traffic congestion, which was absolutely horrible in downtown Boston. Wikipedia seems to have a decent article on the topic.

  2. Re:Hey Ted by rob1980 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Born November 18, 1923 (1923-11-18) (age 83)

    Somehow, assuming he doesn't simply die of old age before this case were to work its way through the system, appeals, and all that jazz, I think they'll end up playing the health card to keep him out of prison.

  3. Re:Taxes by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Informative

    Alaskans get an annual dividend payout that's usually about a thousand bucks. The state also doesn't collect sales tax or income tax (although some cities do, IIRC).

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  4. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    > People in Alaksa don't pay taxes.

    No state taxes anyway. They definitely do pay federal income tax.

    And it's the state that pays the citizens. It's a dividend on oil revenue, and it's not really a lot.

  5. Re:Nice Line from Stevens by vought · · Score: 4, Informative

    And here is a nice video explaining the whole VECO scandal.

    It doesn't look good for Ted.

  6. Re:Power corrupts by Epi-man · · Score: 2, Informative

    The second was under Regan. The result- a massive stock crash, followed by the 2nd biggest depression of the 20th century.


    Umm, what? I assume you are talking about the crash of '87 (I am amazed how many people have forgotten about it). So let me see, Jan 2nd, 1986 the DJIA closes at $1549.20, we have Black Monday and close at 1,738.74 on October 19th, 1987 (still over 12% above the Jan '86 close!!!). On October 30th, 1987, the DJIA closed at 1,993.53, where is your depression?! What kind of crack are you smoking? Can I please, please, please invest in this depression of yours, I would love to have a return of 29% is under 2 years! Please get your head out of the clouds and realize that you speak utter non-sense. There was a singular depression in the 20th century, there was a mild recession in the early 90s that by all economic standards barely qualifies as a recession.
  7. Re:When will /. turn on Dianne Feinstein? by beckerist · · Score: 2, Informative

    Considering we're still all funked up from the economics of every single example you gave I think it's VERY relevant.

    If you REALLY don't think that the decisions made more than 10 years ago don't affect us today, please read this. (PDF)

  8. Re:Power corrupts by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Informative

    The stock market exploded with reagonomics and interest rates plummeted and inflation was finally under control.


    The stock market exploding is not the sign of a healthy economy. Its more the sign of a bubble than anything else. Note it also exploded in the 1920s. The anti-inflation was a result of the work of Paul Vocker and the FED, not Reganomics. Regan also caused the 2nd largest defecit spending in US history (second only to Bush II), which we're still paying interest on today. Pretty short sighted policies to spend trillions more than we had.

    More money for the wealthy means lower interest rates so businesses can hire more and expand as loans become cheap.


    In an ideal world, things work like that. In the real world, what happens is spending on luxury items, higher housing costs, and general inflation. The greatest increases in world GDP have always happened when the middle class expands- when money is spread out amongst many, increasing the buying power of the general populace not the rich.

    The more money people have the more jobs are created and the fact that after 9-11 we had not had a serious recession confirms that giving businesses low interest rate loans and wealth insurances more jobs.


    Wow you have a short memory. We had a recession after 9/11. Followed by a jobless recovery- stock prices went back up but unemployment stayed high. Then they putzed with the numbers (turning McDonalds jobs into "Manufacturing") to get rid of the evidence.
    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?