OMG2

12/5/2009 8:21:49 AM

we're doing that stupid bullshit in soapbox now?

12/5/2009 8:25:10 AM

^ what? half of burro’s TSB posts are noting new pages.

12/5/2009 12:44:05 PM

Democrats Provide Holiday Dinner Talking Points To Their Obamabots
Posted on December 7, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/yh8dl7v

The "Home for the Holidays Cribsheet" paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Sweet Jesus.

12/8/2009 6:38:29 AM

Let's at least attempt to keep this thread credible by dropping the name calling. To me it is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy, especially when it isn't even clever.

12/8/2009 6:52:52 AM

^ I was simply quoting the headline. The story is legit--an e-mail is included in the article--but I couldn't find another link.

FTR, I first heard the story at issue reported on FOX & Friends (yes, FNC--GASP!). Now that we've got that all cleared up, would mind simply addressing the topic of the post? Thanks.

12/8/2009 7:04:47 AM

How about we address issues when they're presented in a fashion above the 4th grade playground vernacular and supported by legitimate sources?

I, for one, am suspicious of a site which refers to the "Democrat-ick" party in the first line and cites no sources for the e-mail. This particular blog does not have the reputation (one way or the other) to convey legitimacy by simply posting something on the internet.

12/8/2009 7:15:12 AM

^ Um. . .did you happen to catch this part?

Quote :

"FTR, I first heard the story at issue reported on FOX & Friends (yes, FNC--GASP!). Now that we've got that all cleared up, would mind simply addressing the topic of the post? Thanks."

As soon as another link is available, I'll post it--let me know if it suits you. Stop being so highfalutin, for fuck's sake.

PS: Here you go--from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's own Web site:

"Holiday Cribsheet: Official Talking Points"

https://secure.democratsenators.org/o/4/images/holiday_tips.pdf

[Edited on December 8, 2009 at 7:55 AM. Reason : Happy now? Address the topic.]

12/8/2009 7:51:42 AM

Quote :

"The Obama Administration is touting that their stimulus program has saved or created 640,329 jobs since it was enacted back in February through the end of October. This number is updated and posted on the Administration’s recovery.gov web site. That amounts to $246,436 per job based on the $157.8bn that has been awarded so far! Total compensation earned by the average payroll employee during October, on an annualized basis, was $59,867. If the government had simply used the funds awarded so far to pay for a year’s worth of labor, that would have paid for 2.6mn jobs!"

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/12/07/cost-benefit-analysis-of-jobs-stimulus/

12/8/2009 10:44:58 AM

well that's because these idiots are trying to create construction and highway jobs were the vast amount of money spent on such projects are to pay for material, not labor.

12/8/2009 11:16:39 AM

What other jobs would you suggest they create?

12/8/2009 12:23:34 PM

Not to say I agree with the stimulus package, but this is a load of crap. Jobs don't appear out of no-where. There has to be an incentive to CREATE a position. Obama can't just tell businesses to hire more people.

12/8/2009 1:03:17 PM

GOP's Steele demands Senate's Harry Reid apologize for slavery remark in health care debate
December 8, 2009

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele is renewing his demand that Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid apologize for likening health care overhaul opponents to those who resisted putting an end to slavery. The Nevada Democrat made the assertion in a statement Monday as the Senate worked on legislation to remake the health care system, President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. Steele said on CBS's 'The Early Show' Tuesday 'it was an ignorant moment for Harry Reid.' He said that when Democrats get in trouble, 'they play that race card, that slavery card, that civil rights card.' Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, responded to Steele's initial statement Monday by calling his remarks 'feigned outrage.'"

http://tinyurl.com/y9z736m

12/8/2009 5:25:50 PM

It was a pretty dumb comment for Reid to make, that cheapens the civil rights struggle more than anything.

12/8/2009 6:45:45 PM

Quote :

"Stop being so highfalutin, for fuck's sake."

Asking for something more substantial than an sourceless internet post or a brief mention on a morning show isn't "highfalutin", it's just credibility.

12/8/2009 9:13:36 PM

^ Yes, and now you have it above--directly from the original source. Now are you going to address the topic or are you going to continue to squirm about the sand in your vag?

PS: Trolling from a high horse is still trolling.

[Edited on December 9, 2009 at 7:37 AM. Reason : .]

12/9/2009 7:36:39 AM

Quote :

"Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, gave a nearly $14,000 pay raise to a female staffer in 2008, at the time he was becoming romantically involved with her, and later that year took her on a taxpayer-funded trip to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, though foreign policy was not her specialty. Late last Friday, Baucus acknowledged his relationship with Melodee Hanes, whom he nominated for the job of U.S. attorney in Montana, after it was first reported on the website MainJustice.com."

And these are the scum you want to hand more power to?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30478.html

12/11/2009 9:59:53 AM

ADDRESS THE TOPIC I CREATED BY POSTING A QUOTE AND A LINK WITHOUT A FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION OR EVEN MY OWN COMMENTARY

12/11/2009 10:43:36 AM

Judge Blocks U.S. Ban on Funding for Acorn
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126057881607388239.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

12/12/2009 2:19:51 AM

If I get the time this weekend I might try to find the opinion online. Seems like the key question here is, "does removal of discretionary congressional spending from an organization constitute legal punishment?"


From the article:

Quote :

"Acorn lawyers included quotes from several Republicans accusing Acorn of being a criminal organization that deserved to be punished. In her decision, the judge wrote that those statements "underline the punitive nature of the government's purportedly non-punitive reason" for banning Acorn."

So, is congressional funding a legal right which requires the judicial process to remove? To my knowledge, none of the ACORN employees are being legislated as criminals by Congress and retain all the rights of a US citizen.


Thoughts from the more legally savvy?

12/12/2009 9:53:49 AM

Quote :

"A chastened Chuck Schumer admits he was just plane dumb in not realizing when it was time to shut up. That's why he hustled Wednesday to apologize to a female flight attendant after referring to her with the B-word following a heated snit Sunday aboard a Washington-bound US Airways shuttle. Schumer was yakking away on his cell phone as the jet waited at the gate at LaGuardia when the flight attendant told him to cork it. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was also ear-to-phone in the seat next to him. Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon said the senator complied with the order, but he argued, noting the plane door was still open. The woman told him she had the last word. But Schumer found one more after she walked away - the B-word - as he groused about the attendant to Gillibrand. Unfortunately for Schumer, a Republican on board overheard him - and spilled the beans to Politico.com"

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/12/16/2009-12-16_schumer_regrets_b_slap_on_plane.html#ixzz0ZuRTDORP

For the record . . . no . . . no I won't say what I think about Charles.

12/16/2009 9:31:48 PM

Chuck is a jerk. Said it before and I'll say it again. I've been on the wrong side of his wraith enough times for a lifetime.

He's definitely not warm and sunshiney.

12/16/2009 9:54:16 PM

Quote :

"Democratic districts have received nearly twice as much stimulus money as Republican districts and the cash has been awarded without regard to how badly an area was suffering from job losses, according to a new study. The Mercatus Center at George Mason University reviewed the distribution of $157 billion in stimulus dollars based on publicly available reports and found that there was "no statistical correlation" between the amount of money a district got and its income or unemployment rate. "You would think, right, that if the administration believes in its theory that government money can create jobs, they would spend a lot of money in districts that have high unemployment," study co-author Veronique de Rugy said. "We found absolutely no relationship. It just kind of shows that the money is spent kind of randomly." Rather, the study found that Democratic congressional districts received 1.89 times more money than GOP districts. The average award for Democratic districts was $439 million, while the average award for Republican ones was $232 million. On average, Democratic districts also got 152 awards, while Republican ones got 94. The data is sure to fuel skepticism about the $787 billion stimulus bill passed in February that only garnered three Republican votes. While the administration claims it has created 640,000 jobs, critics point to the still-soaring 10 percent unemployment rate in arguing that the stimulus has had a nominal effect. Oddly, the Mercatus study found far more stimulus money went to higher-income areas than lower-income areas. "We found no correlation between economic indicators and stimulus funding. Preliminary results find no effect of unemployment, median income, or mean income on stimulus funds allocation," the report said."

http://ow.ly/16b72Y

Uh-huh. Again, what was that about corporate corruption and collusion? This is why I don't understand people who automatically feel that the government will somehow be more fair or efficient than the market with it's own flaws and blemishes.

12/19/2009 1:17:41 PM

It is my understanding that you essentially have to apply or bid for the funding, it’s not just spent. Without knowing more about how they collected the data, i’d wager that democratic districts were more likely to apply for the stimulus money than the republican districts.

12/19/2009 2:05:59 PM

The data was collected from Recovery.gov and I doubt the Democratic districts submitted any more or less than the Republican districts. A politician is a politician and they're going to want to bring home as much bacon as they can get.

And this isn't a dig at Democrats, were Republicans in power the effect would be the same. The point is that this presumption that Congress or a bureaucracy is somehow more equitable than the market is laughable.



A bit more on the study from the Mercatus Center:

Quote :

"Using recipient report data from Recovery.gov and economic and political data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, GovTrack.us, and others, we have compiled a series of facts about stimulus spending. Our interest is simply to make use of the tens of thousands of stimulus recipient reports recently published on Recovery.gov and to put the aggregate information contained in those reports in a larger context. We hope that this report will become part of a regular series as new recipient reports are released each quarter. The data presented here encompass the FY09 Q4 reports of Recovery Act contracts and grants only. More information about our methodology is at the end of this document. Additionally, the complete dataset used for this report is available for download at Mercatus.org. Basic Facts A total of 56,399 contracts and grants totaling $157,028,362,536 were awarded in this first quarter for which Recovery.gov reports are available. The number of jobs claimed as created or saved is 638,826.54—an average of $245,807.51 per job. The total amount awarded to public entities (such as municipalities and state agencies) is $87,865,102,272. However, some of this money may have ultimately found its way to private subgrantees or subcontractors. The total amount awarded to private contractors and grantees is $69,163,260,264. While public entities received 45.696 percent of the number of all awards, these awards constituted over half of the dollars awarded (55.955 percent). Party Affiliation For our analysis, we looked at the 435 congressional districts in the United States plus the District of Columbia, but excluded Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and foreign stimulus recipients, such as Canada. The average number of awards per district is 128, and the average dollar amount awarded per district is $355,103,891. There are 177 districts represented by Republicans and 259 represented by Democrats. On average, Democratic districts received 1.6 times more awards than Republican ones. The average number of awards per Republican district is 94, while the average number of awards per Democratic district is 152. Democratic districts also received 1.89 times more stimulus dollars than Republican districts. The average dollars awarded per Republican district is $232,047,857, while the average dollars awarded per Democratic district is $439,200,100. In total, Democratic districts received 73.47 percent of the total stimulus funds awarded. In terms of numbers of awards, Republican districts received 29.77 percent of the total, while Democratic districts received 70.22 percent. . . . Furthermore, we find that there is no effect on the amount of stimulus funds allocated based on whether a district voted for John McCain or Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. While $101,483,870,504 have been allocated to congressional districts that voted for President Obama (or 65.5 percent of the total amount allocated), $53,341, 425,974 (or 34.5 percent) have been allocated to congressional districts that voted for McCain. It should be noted, however, that there were many more congressional districts that voted for Obama than voted for McCain. President Obama won 55.6 percent of congressional districts, and McCain won 44.4 percent of these districts. . . . House Leadership As noted earlier, the average congressional district received $355,103,891. In contrast, the average leadership district (defined as a district where the representative is part of the majority or minority House political leadership or is a chairman or ranking member of a committee) received $309,183,100. The average amount awarded to a leadership district is fairly comparable regardless of whether the leader is a member of the majority or the minority. The amount awarded to average majority leadership district is $306,098,932, while the amount awarded to average minority leadership district is $312,267,268. Notice that each of these amounts is less than the amount awarded to the average district and less than the amount awarded to the average non-leadership district, which is $361,052,180."

http://ow.ly/NF0F

12/19/2009 2:23:13 PM

Is anyone else confused by these two statements:

Quote :

""no statistical correlation" between the amount of money a district got and its income or unemployment rate. "

Quote :

"Oddly, the Mercatus study found far more stimulus money went to higher-income areas than lower-income areas. "

12/19/2009 3:14:40 PM

My understanding of the stimulus is that private businesses and organizations, not politicians, request the funds.

12/19/2009 3:43:36 PM

^^ not necessarily, the first sentence implies that there should be a positive correlation between high unemployment and high stimulus spending. That there was no statistically significant relation between stimulus spending and unemployment does not preclude a trend towards financially powerful districts getting more money.


Also . . .

Quote :

"Also Tuesday, U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said Republicans need to stop complaining about deals their colleagues made. "Rather than sitting here and carping about what Nelson got for Nebraska, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let's get together and see what we can get for South Carolina," Clyburn said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34551523/ns/politics-health_care_reform

Nothing is new about anything going on in the health care deal-making but, again, it illustrates why I'm completely baffled when people expect Congress to be remotely competent at crafting legislation to control 1/6th of the economy.

12/23/2009 10:06:54 PM

Doesn't entirely apply here, but close enough:

Quote :

"The Federal Housing Finance Agency approved compensation plans for Fannie Chief Executive Michael Williams and Freddie CEO Charles Haldeman Jr. Those packages are expected to be in a range of $4 million to $6 million, people familiar with the matter said. The companies are expected to spell out pay details for their top executives in securities filings Thursday morning."

http://bit.ly/561zoe

Well look what we have here, corporate fat cats cashing in while the average customer is still under water and tax-payers are bailing them out. Oh, wait, these are congressionally chartered fat cats. Good to see that the government is standing up for the little guy.

12/23/2009 11:01:43 PM

Senator Max Baucus Drunk / Intoxicated on Senate Floor - Shouts Down Wicker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Y9X5ggxzA

I don't know, he seems like he could be drunk to me. Or just really tired. If I was supporting this kind of garbage legislation, I'd probably stay have to stay wasted around the clock too.

12/24/2009 11:01:58 AM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30970.html

Unlimited aid for Freddie, Fannie

Quote :

"The government has handed its ATM card to beleaguered mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Treasury Department said Thursday it removed the $400 billion financial cap on the money it will provide to keep the companies afloat. Already, taxpayers have shelled out $111 billion to the pair, and a senior Treasury official said losses are not expected to exceed the government's estimate this summer of $170 billion over 10 years. "

12/29/2009 8:50:11 AM

sweet jesus, it never ends.

12/29/2009 9:16:14 AM

^^

The Treasury department went on to say that if there were any future negative consequences to their actions today it will be Bush's fault..not theirs.

12/29/2009 10:49:23 AM

Great, so now it's just a blame game. "Sure, we're destroying the economy, but only to paper over the mess that Bush created." Yes, the Bush administration was responsible for terrible things. Isn't the correct course of action to not continue doing those same things? I know it isn't politically viable to do the right thing, but if the Obama administration would, they'd be vindicated in the history books. Instead, they're going to go down as the ones that took the wheel from Bush and stomped on the gas, right over the edge of a cliff.

12/29/2009 10:59:10 AM

I heard that the Bush Administration caused Global Warming





















and herpes

12/29/2009 12:03:06 PM

Unfortunately, the voting public loves the blame game.

12/29/2009 1:21:26 PM

Yes, and the media perpetuates it further. Because of the two party system, there's this scenario painted that makes it seem as if either Republicans are right, or Democrats are right, and you need to pick one. Of course, both parties are dead wrong and don't understand how the economy functions. Back in the 1980s when Volcker did the right thing by raising interest rates substantially, he was hated. People blamed him. Looking back on it, we know that he did the right thing. It's cliche as it is, doing what's right isn't always popular, and surely we've learned that doing what's popular isn't always right. There are two ways of looking at representatives. One camp says that representatives should do whatever the constituents want them to do at the time. The other camp, that I'm a part of, says that you should elect a representative to act on their own judgment. You'll look at that candidate, assess his or her principles, and say "Yeah, I like that, and I want every vote to be guided by those principles." Term limits would encourage that kind of behavior.

12/29/2009 1:49:21 PM

Put on term limits and the only people left in Washington who know the legislative system will be lobbyists.

12/29/2009 1:54:48 PM

It's not the old politicians would walk out and the lobbyists would walk in. New people would be elected to congress from their districts. We might lose some good people, but we'll lose a lot more bad people. I think the problem is career politicians. If the primary goal is to get re-elected, there's always going to be incentive to take from the 49% and give to the 51%. We need a citizen legislature that's going to have to go back and live under the laws they create.

12/29/2009 2:14:38 PM

Quote :

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) offered a blunt assessment of the nation’s psyche Tuesday morning, saying he doesn’t need the Massachusetts Senate race to alert him that Americans are angry, fearful and concerned about the state of the nation. “We’re all pretty unpopular. Why? Because people don’t feel good, and we’re the leaders and we’re in office, and they expect us to do something about it,” Hoyer said. It was a frank, and somewhat startling, admission as Democratic leadership and the White House are looking to push a final health care overhaul bill through Congress, against the setting of a possible rebuke of the Obama administration’s agenda in the Senate special election in Massachusetts. While Hoyer said he still expects Democrat Martha Coakley would win the Senate seat in Massachusetts, he didn’t dispute that opposition to the health-care overhaul legislation is playing a part in the Democrats' problems in the race, as are administration policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the war on terror. It's "part and parcel," Hoyer said. But he expressed confidence that the opposition to the health care reform is opposition for opposition’s sake by Republicans and the insurance industry."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31658.html#ixzz0d5YEwoA8


For what it is worth.


I think he misses the point on a couple of topics,
- "we’re the leaders and we’re in office, and they expect us to do something about it: part of the backlash now is due to the belief that "just doing something" got us in the mess we're in today.
- he expressed confidence that the opposition to the health care reform is opposition for opposition’s sake by Republicans and the insurance industry.: Considering Coakley's campaign has received a rather substantial amount of money from the insurance industry, I'm not sure who he thinks he's fooling.

1/19/2010 2:36:53 PM

Quote :

"Why? Because people don’t feel good, and we’re the leaders and we’re in office,"

Actually people don't feel good BECAUSE they're the leaders and they're in office.

1/19/2010 9:12:53 PM

Quote :

"Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., said it would "only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Brown is seated." Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., a fierce advocate for health care reform, also said it might be time to take a time-out on health care reform and focus on jobs. "It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to take a step back and say we're going to pivot, do a jobs thing, and try to include some health care things as a part of that," he said. "If we were struggling and making the bill worse with a 60-vote Senate majority, I don't see how we make it better with 59." "

Kudos to a couple of Dems this morning. These guys are thinking ahead, and thinking rationally.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/19/brown-win-forces-democrats-evaluate-health-care-reform-game-plan/

1/20/2010 8:50:14 AM

Quote :

"- "we’re the leaders and we’re in office, and they expect us to do something about it: part of the backlash now is due to the belief that "just doing something" got us in the mess we're in today."

everything i've read out of mass says the opposite, that people are mad they are not doing enough

1/20/2010 9:02:22 AM

I've had a mancrush on Jim Webb for some years now.

1/20/2010 9:10:21 AM

Our politicians have no credibility. If your primary concern is being re-elected then you don't have a true grasp on your job as a legislator. There are only really 2 options:

1 - Enact your will. The people saw fit to elect you based on your brains, charisma, etc. and they trust your judgment to do what is right and fair.

2 - Enact the will of your constituency, everyone else be damned. You owe your loyalty to them and you serve as their voice and their vote. You should vote as the majority of the people in your district or state would providing their views are constitutional.

What actually happens is nothing more than pandering, demagoguery, and working the system with no concern for anything other than, how can I get re-elected. If any of these people had either ideals or credibility they would have long ago passed this health care bill they seem so dead set on passing. The same can be said of almost every congress since career politician became an option. Their only real concern is doing that which will keep them in power and allow them to milk tons of money from special interest groups and hand taxpayer money out to their friends. It's just one giant good old boy circle jerk and we're left to eat the soggy biscuit.

1/20/2010 9:20:38 AM

Quote :

"1 - Enact your will. The people saw fit to elect you based on your brains, charisma, etc. and they trust your judgment to do what is right and fair. 2 - Enact the will of your constituency, everyone else be damned. You owe your loyalty to them and you serve as their voice and their vote. You should vote as the majority of the people in your district or state would providing their views are constitutional."

I agree. In an ideal world, this would be how it works

1/20/2010 10:00:43 AM

Democrats propose $1.9T increase in debt limit

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion. The unpopular legislation is needed to allow the federal government to issue bonds to fund programs and prevent a first-time default on obligations. It promises to be a challenging debate for Democrats, who, as the party in power, hold the responsibility for passing the legislation. It's hardly the debate Democrats want or need in the wake of Sen.-elect Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Arguing over the debt limit provides a forum for Republicans to blame Democrats for rising deficits and spiraling debt, even though responsibility for the government's financial straits can be shared by both political parties. The measure came to the floor under rules requiring 60 votes to pass. That's an unprecedented step that could mean that every Democrat, no matter how politically endangered, may have to vote for it next week before Brown takes office and Democrats lose their 60-vote majority. Democratic leaders are also worried that Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who opposed the debt limit increase approved last month, will vote against the measure. The record increase in the so-called debt limit is required because the budget deficit has spiraled out of control in the wake of a recession that cut tax revenues, the Wall Street bailout, and increased spending by the Democratic-controlled Congress. Last year's deficit hit a phenomenal $1.4 trillion, and the current year's deficit promises to be as high or higher. Congress has never failed to increase the borrowing limit. "We have gone to the restaurant. We have eaten the meal. Now the only question is whether we will pay the check," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. "We simply must do so." A White House policy statement said the increase "is critically important to make sure that financing of federal government operations can continue without interruption and that the creditworthiness of the United States is not called into question." Less than a decade ago, $1.9 trillion would have been enough to finance the operations and programs of the federal government for an entire year. Now, it's only enough to make sure Democrats can avoid another vote before Election Day. Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota immediately offered an amendment to end the bank and Wall Street bailout, officially known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Thune would prohibit further expenditure of TARP funds and would require that all funds paid back be used to retire debt. The latest increase comes on top of a stopgap $290 billion measure that cleared the Senate on Christmas Eve. Given the country's finances, that measure would last only about six weeks, lawmakers said, requiring the far larger measure that's pending."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_debt_limit_11

The irony of the second bolded part is that we can't possibly maintain our "creditworthiness" while continuing current government options. It's simply not an option. No one is taking action to reduce the annual deficit. No one is trying to reduce the debt. The politicians want to keep the gravy train rolling for as long as possible, but hopefully they catch hell for doing so this time around.

1/21/2010 8:54:27 AM

I am getting sick of all the partisan hackery.

1/21/2010 4:33:32 PM

Quote :

"When lawmakers travel overseas on official business they are given up to $250 a day in taxpayer funds to cover meals and expenses. Congressional rules say they must return any leftover cash to the government. They usually don't. According to interviews with 20 current and former members of Congress, lawmakers use the excess cash for shopping or to defray spouses' travel expenses. Sometimes they give it away; sometimes they pocket it. Many lawmakers said they didn't know the rules demand repayment. "If that was the policy, you could never get many members traveling," said Rep. Solomon Ortiz, a Texas Democrat. Mr. Ortiz said he had never returned any money. "There's a tacit understanding that if lawmakers don't spend the money, they get to keep it," said Rep. Sue Kelly, a New York Republican who was defeated in 2006. Former Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican, said lawmakers often used leftover money "for shopping or to buy souvenirs to bring back to constituents. That's fairly standard." Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.) said he once bought marble goblets in the Kabul airport as gifts for constituents. Rep. Mark Souder (R., Ind.) said he dipped into his funds to buy a $200 painting of an estuary in Turkey, which hung in his office for a while and was now in his house. Lawmakers who said they sometimes keep excess funds said the amounts were small. "I won't deny that sometimes I have a little left, but it's not much—maybe 80, 90, or 100 dollars," said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D., N.C.)."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703429304575095592193574752.html?mod=e2tw

3/2/2010 6:45:21 PM

Quote :

"Charles Rangel met with New York Democrats on Saturday in an effort to save embattled Gov. David Paterson. But the meeting could just as easily have been about Rangel himself. The House ethics committee decision to admonish Rangel for taking two corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean has turned up the heat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee chairman — with even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying that Rangel’s actions don’t pass the “smell test.” Several House Democrats have now joined Republicans in calling for Rangel to lose his gavel, and The New York Times has chimed in, saying the “arrogance” Rangel showed in the wake of Thursday’s ethics committee ruling provides “one more reason” for Pelosi to “stop protecting him and relieve him of his crucial role as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.” In an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” Pelosi acknowledged that “what Mr. Rangel has been admonished for is not good.” But the speaker also said that Rangel’s participation in the corporate-sponsored trips wasn’t something that had “jeopardized our country in any way,” and she made it clear that she has no intention of taking away Rangel’s chairmanship unless and until the ethics committee determines that he’s guilty of a number of ethics violations it’s currently investigating."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33668.html#ixzz0h49s9YS1

I fucking disagree. This constant attitude of "it doesn't apply to me" when stretched out across the wide breadth of Congressional activities is precisely what is endangering this nation.

3/2/2010 6:47:56 PM