If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Is it illegal for members of Congress to steer no-bid contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of earmarks to campaign contributors?
Of course not! In fact, I have just asked a stupid question. The Washington Post reported yesterday that, ““Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member’s actions are being influenced by campaign contributions,” the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct said in a unanimous statement.”
Why would Congress make rules that would prevent them for rewarding campaign contributors with government money? Kickbacks are essential in maintaining status within the political class, i.e. buying votes. As I wrote in my second piece on Nancy Pelosi’s party plane, Party on Madam Speaker:
“No SH!#T!!! Of course it was perfectly legal! We are being taken advantage of by a political class that has built itself a secure power structure that they can keep in place by using our money that we earn through our hard work to buy votes and give out favors that lead to campaign contributions.”
This is sick. As my regular readers know, I am currently unemployed. I am looking for a job (anybody know of openings for a political writer?). What if I were to promise to steer company A’s purchases to a person or business that helped me get a job at company A? Answer: Prison.
But if you’re in Congress and you steer government money to companies that help you keep your job, you get reelected. I guess I just followed the wrong career path.
{ 21 comments }
I remember Nancy Pelosi bashing the Republican controlled Congress as the most corrupt governmental body ever. She swore that the Democrat controlled Congress would be the most transparent ever and she would work to weed out corruption.
Lets check the roll call, shall we?
Charlie Rangel – D, New York. Nothing has happened in a year and a half.
If you are waiting for something to happen, don’t hold your breath.
William Jefferson – D, Louisiana. Congress did nothing to him, despite getting caught with $90K in the freezer.
The people of his district in New Orleans voted him out, and he was convicted in Federal court
They are a bunch of corrupt hypocrites……………they use the poor, the underclass, the unfortunate for their own political gains..to control not to help…
Now they are being found out that they are part of the conspiracy to systematically destroying our political system and our way of life…
People wake up! Remember who you are. We as a nation will survive this corrupt assault and we will return to our values that made this country so great.
If it weren’t for the individual human spirit, this country would have never risen to the greatness it has….but the collectivism theory of this administration and Congress will destroy our economy, and take away our freedoms. administration
Remove ALL incumbants in Nov ’10
A few months ago when Senator Kennedy died I wasn’t surprised but I was amused when he was cited universally as a champion of the poor. Kennedy’s liberalism and his concern for the disadvantaged was sincere enough. That’s not the point. The point is that he was a hero because he worked to established government programs designed to help minorities and the disadvantaged, programs financed by taxpayers’ money. Kennedy was rich, and maybe he gave a great deal of his personal wealth to help the poor and minorities. I don’t know, but the government programs he sponsored weren’t financed by Kennedy’s wealth, but by the general revenue of the national government, which essentially comes from two sources: taxes and borrowing. Borrowing, in turn, sooner or later must be repaid with interest from tax revenue, so ultimately Kennedy’s liberalism was financed by the citizenry, but not by all citizens, as income taxes fall with great disproportion on people with high incomes. In short, Kennedy is a hero because he caused the money of rich people to be spent involuntarily on poor people. Poor folks, who pay no or very little income tax for these benefits, of course support Kennedy (and other like him) for reelection, term after term, especially when reelection campaigns are massive, paid by campaign contributors who profit from the reelection of incumbents.
I think y0uve got it, RS. You should run for office.
A good example of campaign-contribution corruption can be seen in the recent actions of Senator Bunning (R) of Kentucky, who has singlehandedly held up the latest extension of unemployment benefits in the Senate because he is demanding a cut in the federal estate tax, which will benefit only those estates over $7 million in value. Obviously, the heirs of multimillion -dollar estates need and deserve our sympathy every bit as much as those who are unemployed, right?
As for the late Ted Kennedy, anyone who says the programs he supported were not financed by his wealth has a poor understanding of our tax system. Kennedy belonged in the top 5% of Americans by annual income. As such, every time Kennedy voted to support progressive income tax rates he was voting for higher taxes on himself. It’s called putting your money where your mouth is.
From the AP:
Two thousand federal transportation workers were furloughed without pay on Monday, and the Obama administration said they have a Kentucky senator to blame for it.
Federal reimbursements to states for highway programs will also be halted, the Transportation Department said in a statement late Sunday. The reimbursements amount to about $190 million a day, according to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
The furloughs and freeze on payments were the result of a decision last week by Republican Sen. Jim Bunning to block passage of legislation that would have extended federal highway and transit programs, the department said. Those programs expired at midnight Sunday.
The extension of transportation programs was part of a larger package of government programs that also expired Sunday, including unemployment benefits for about 400,000 Americans.
Bunning objected to the $10 billion measure, saying it would add to the budget deficit. He didn’t respond to a request Monday for comment.
Furloughs will affect employees at the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
LaHood said construction workers will be sent home from job sites because federal inspectors must be furloughed.
Among the construction sites where work will be halted: the $36 million replacement of the Humpback Bridge on the George Washington Parkway in Virginia; $15 million in bridge construction and stream rehabilitation in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; and the $8 million resurfacing of the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississippi.
At the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the furloughs are expected to disrupt safety programs that operate in partnership with states and advocacy groups, including drunken driving, child passenger safety and motorcycle safety programs, the department said.
ROFI/Paul/Henri/Collingswoodie/Hesh and all immature hairdressers…..
“the furloughs are expected to disrupt safety programs that operate in partnership with states and advocacy groups, including drunken driving, child passenger safety and motorcycle safety programs, the department said.”
Too bad they couldn’t disrupt the flow of drivil from your fingers…
These are not the kind of jobs that get the country moving forward.
“Make work jobs” in the Obamba Big gov’ment are temporary and therefore an illegitimate way to make real economic growth possible…
Nothing will improve until the ‘Bamster resigns or initiates pro growth, pro business policies…YOU Dig, fool?
Like all Right wing idiots, I firmly believe that we need to get rid of such unnecessary frills as programs to stop drunk drivers and to repair our nation’s roads and bridges!
Kudos to Sen. Bunning for putting a hold on such frivolous nonsense!
MOP boy at the hair studio…
You forgot to address the PAYGO promise….Not much to say there…
What CAN be said about corrupt incompetent hacks….Like Miss Piglosi???????????
And Bunning is ONE man, dosen’t control s**t…Just his recommendation, it seems…If it’s so great, go ahead and pass it…Repubs CANNOT stop anything…Dig FOOL?
ROFI/Nnelg of Pandora
If you listen to the Hall of Famer, he was only doing what Nancy Botox Piglosi said she wanted Congress to do when making new expenditures, in 2006,….A little thing called PAYGO…Remember?
I’m sure you were for then… AND
if Obamba and Congress would become more business friendly, we would not need to extend UNEMPLOYMENT insurance, people would HAVE jobs..
Now grow TF-up…
Richard, you sound like one of the nasty, foul-mouthed little students I had when I was (pretending to be) a teacher. What you need is a good sharp rap on the knuckles with my trusty ruler!
Only a mouth-breathing, slack-jawed idiot would suggest that a president who bailed out the nation’s banks and auto companies with hundreds of billions in corporate welfare money needs to be MORE business-friendly. LOL!
Miss Borden-Famous Hairdresser
I believe we are talking about all Americans, not just the Bamster’s supporters on Wall Street(GoldmanSacs), the greedy banks, and the corrupt Union pigs at the car companies…
These particular folks ,having all the money, does NOT raise the general economic sea level at all… Dig, FOOL??????
All Americans? Well, the millions of people in this country who work for banks and auto companies are Americans, and so are the millions who work for businesses that rely on auto companies for orders and banks for credit. Surely you are not too stupid to understand that? Or are you?
To which businesses should Obama be MORE friendly?
To the drug company Glaxo, which was recently cited by a Congressional panel for threatening doctors who disclosed that its billion-dollar diabetes drug Avandia was causing patients heart problems?
To Cheney’s company Halliburton, which stole millions of taxpayer dollars that were supposed to be used to support our troops in Iraq?
To Blackwater, which is now under investigation for trying to bribe Iraqi officials to allow it to keep operating in their country after its people killed 17 civilians in Baghdad?
Or to Goldman Sachs, which is now under investigation for helping the Greek government lie about the size of its deficit and avoid bankruptcy (until now)?
Mr. S., I find your position on this issue confusing. In one recent post you criticized campaign finance reform as an unacceptable restriction on free speech. In this post you seem to be saying that a lack of such reform breeds corruption. You can’t have it both ways.
There is no way to eliminate the corrupting influence of campaign contributions other than eliminating campaign contributions themselves, along with eliminating independent expenditures to influence elections by corporations, unions and other big money groups. If you can come up with some other way to prevent contributors from directly or indirectly influencing the actions of public officials, let’s hear it.
Conservatives usually oppose any restriction on campaign contributions as a restriction on free speech. Their position is that full disclosure of all contributions and expenditures is all that is needed. Your post above makes it clear this position is not in touch with reality.
Nnelg,
First, though I am certainly no liberal by the modern definition, I am not conservative either. Neither party nor their related philosphies of liberal or conservative is for limited government as I am. Instead both are in favor of using government and cronyism to advance their causes. I want government to mind its own damn business. All of us would have greater freedom and prosperity if our government and We the People would understand the Constitution’s limits on government.
As for campaign finance reform; I oppose it. I do not want the government to have the power to decide who has the right to free speech and when they have that right. I understand that President Obama was correct in citing all of the issues campaign finance reform solves. He failed to acknowledge the problems it caused and the potential for problems it creates. Those problems are far more dangerous.
There is a way to eliminate the “corrupting influence of campaign contributions other than eliminating the contributions:” the link to the source of my above column contains the list of all of those members of Congress that escaped penalties for their corrupt acts. Now it is time for We the People to take care of the problem – either recall these members now or vote them out the next time they come up for reelection.
Folks, at some point, We the People have to stop relying on government to police themselves as there is clearly a major conflict of interest. We need to act by voting, and we need to have the courage to say, “That member of Congress is from my district and I supported that member and now that he/she is proven corrupt I am going take responsibility for my support and lead the effort to throw that bum out.”
Mr. S, thanks for a very cogent reply.
Two points. First, for some of us our “limited government” is already much too limited. When government does nothing about a huge drug company threatening physicians who try to blow the whistle on the dangers of a billion-dollar product like Avandia, or about an investment bank that destabilizes international markets by helping one country hide the real size of its deficit for years, then it should be obvious that big business is at least as dangerous to the safety and security of the people as big government ever could be. This is not a danger that can be dealt with by voting. We can’t vote out people who are not elected, but who have a major effect on our lives nonetheless. Only powerful and energetic regulators can possibly cope with this danger. We had no such regulators under Bush. What about now?
Second, as long as we have a political system in which the incentives for corrupt behavior are greater than the disincentives – a system in which campaigns require a lot of cash and those who contribute always want something in return – then voting one bunch out and another bunch in is pointless. I admire the energy and enthusiasm of the Tea Party folks, but if they ever succeed in getting anyone elected they will find out that he will soon succumb to the same system that has corrupted the people they voted out.
Robert and all hairdressers…
You’re NOT a Liberal and you’re NOT a Conservative. I get that..
But a better way to say it would be I’m not a Dimocrat and I’m not a Repub….
Neither of the inside the Beltway Major Parties, follow Constitutional principles.
Both are in the pockets of K-St BIG lobbyists, breeding corruption and cronyism on a massive scale.
When we “Teabaggers” address the problems we see with the system, we are inditing BOTH Dims and Repubs.
We want to get back to Gov’ment doing what is allowed in the Constitution, taxing fairly to fund the items listed in that Document. It may take a generation to achieve but worth it.
Bloatedness is an understatement when describing how gov’ment on all levels has gotten out of control and let everyone down.
As TeaPartyPeople, we are not Left or Right, Lib or Con, but ANTI BigGov’ment and PRO a small gov’ment that defends the Constitution and the individual by extention.
Rafi, no sooner do you announce you are leaving because you can’t stand this site than you come right back with the same lousy grammar, lousy spelling and fifth grade rhetoric. You are so predictable!
Your nonsensical crusade against big government will never succeed because the voters long ago decided they wanted services – like Social Security and Medicare – that can only be provided by a very, very big government. Anyone who threatens to take those away will quickly be crushed, just as Bush was when he tried it fresh from his 2004 victory at the polls. But keep trying. I suppose it is better for the country that you keep tilting at windmills than that you try something that might actually succeed.
Hairdresser-I’m guessin’ you to be 20-24 yrs old?
Keep an eye on NJ. It is a microcosm of what is coming down the road for all of us, whether you are an intelligent, small gov’ment Constitutionalist, like me and Juno, or an Econ 101 illiterate, BIG Gov’ment Statist, such as yourself..
Enjoy your fantasyland while you can, because the “Unionized” winds blowing in off the Atlantic, portend rough waters still to come…
Hope you don’t mind stayin’ poor.Hey.write often i1113rwc@gmail..write often.. out..
Rafi, I see we have yet another “farewell performance” on this site from you. I think that is the third or fourth one so far, right?
Your guesses, like most of your comments have nothing to do with reality.
You have repeatedly lied on this site about your background in order to reinforce the arguments you’ve made. One day you’re a wife and mother who voted for Obama but is now disillusioned (“Juno”), the next day you’re a recent college graduate shopping for her first health policy (“Traci”). Apparently, you don’t think your arguments are strong enough without the support of such lies. I tend to agree.
I, on the other hand, have said next to nothing about my background and will continue to say nothing about it.
As for NJ, that’s a great example of how nonsensical your comments are. The voters there recently threw out a Dem governor who had made a fortune on Wall Street and replaced him with a Rep governor . . . whose family had made a fortune on Wall Street. Wow!
Let me know when the new NJ administration goes “Constitutionalist” and starts refusing federal funds for programs for which the Constitution does not grant Congress any power to appropriate funds – like education and health care. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. You can if you want to.
Rafi, no sooner do you announce you are leaving because you can’t stand this site than you come right back with the same lousy grammar, lousy spelling and fifth grade rhetoric. You are so predictable!