The Cellar
Page 3 of 14 12 3 4567891013 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Congress has lost its mind... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=5891)

TheMercenary 08-06-2009 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 586392)
Members of Congress have no authorization to use these jets for commuting to and from work, but solely when acting on Congressional business, particularly when traveling abroad.
You mean particularly when traveling within the US. Which is the problem. They can take military airlift to go overseas. They should not be taking custom jets, flown by our military, for luxury travel overseas. You know sort of when Pelosi flew to Italy for her vacation.

Quote:
The exception is Pelosi, who is second in line to the presidency...scary, huh?
All the more reason to have her fly in a jet with very poor engines.

TheMercenary 08-09-2009 09:50 AM
An IOU for your great-great grandchildren...

Geithner Asks Congress to Increase Federal Debt Limit

Quote:
Washington -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asked Congress to increase the $12.1 trillion debt limit on Friday, saying it is "critically important" that they act in the next two months.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124970470294516541.html

TheMercenary 08-09-2009 07:52 PM
Nice...

Deficit grew by $181 billion in July

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-08-09.html

TheMercenary 09-07-2009 09:12 AM
It is all about power. Not about getting things done for the people.

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Political survival will be high on lawmakers' minds when the Democratic-led U.S. Congress returns to work on Tuesday amid widespread voter dissatisfaction with its performance.

While the debates over healthcare reform, global warming and banking legislation and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will dominate the airwaves, many incumbents, both Democrats and Republicans, are beginning to worry about holding on to their seats in November 2010 elections.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090906/...ngress_preview

kerosene 09-10-2009 09:48 AM
"...many incumbents, both Democrats and Republicans, are beginning to worry about holding on to their seats in November 2010 elections."

As they should. :greenface

TheMercenary 09-10-2009 10:45 AM
Taxpayers Face Heavy Losses on Auto Bailout
Congressional Oversight Panel report says most of the $23 billion initially provided to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC late last year is unlikely to be repaid.


Quote:
WASHINGTON - Taxpayers face losses on a significant portion of the $81 billion in government aid provided to the auto industry, an oversight panel said in a report to be released Wednesday.

The Congressional Oversight Panel did not provide an estimate of the projected loss in its latest monthly report on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. But it said most of the $23 billion initially provided to General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC late last year is unlikely to be repaid.

"I think they drove a very hard bargain," said Elizabeth Warren, the panel's chairwoman and a law professor at Harvard University, referring to the Obama administration's Treasury Department. "But it may not be enough."

The prospect of recovering the government's assistance to GM and Chrysler is heavily dependent on shares of the two companies rising to unprecedented levels, the report said. The government owns 10 percent of Chrysler and 61 percent of GM. The two companies are currently private but are expected to issue stock, in GM's case by next year.

The shares "will have to appreciate sharply" for taxpayers to get their money back, the report said.

For example, GM's market value would have to reach $67.6 billion, the report said, a "highly optimistic" estimate and more than the $57.2 billion GM was worth at the height of its share value in April 2008. And in the case of Chrysler, about $5.4 billion of the $14.3 billion provided to the company is "highly unlikely" to ever be repaid, the panel said.

Treasury Department officials have acknowledged that most of the $23 billion provided by the Bush administration is likely to be lost. But Meg Reilly, a department spokeswoman, said there is a "reasonably high probability of the return of most or all of the government funding" that was provided to assist GM and Chrysler with their restructurings.

Administration officials have previously said they want to maximize taxpayers' return on the investment but want to dispose of the government's ownership interests as soon as practicable.

"We are not trying to be Warren Buffett here. We are not trying to squeeze every last dollar out," Steve Rattner, who led the administration's auto task force, said before his departure in July. "We do want to do well for the taxpayers but the most important thing is to get the government out of the car business."

Greg Martin, a spokesman for the new GM, said the company is "confident that we will repay our nation's support because we are a company with less debt, a stronger balance sheet, a winning product portfolio and the right size to match today's market realities."

The Congressional Oversight Panel was created as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. It is designed to provide an additional layer of oversight, beyond the Special Inspector General for the TARP and regular audits by the Government Accountability Office.

The panel's report recommends that the Treasury Department consider placing its auto company holdings into an independent trust, to avoid any "conflicts of interest."

The report also recommends the department perform a legal analysis of its decision to provide TARP funds to GM and Chrysler, their financing arms and many auto parts suppliers. Some critics say the law creating TARP didn't allow for such funding.

The panel's members include Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican, who dissented from the report. Hensarling said the auto companies should never have received funding and criticized the government for picking "winners and losers."

Other agencies have also projected large losses on the loans and investments provided to the industry. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in June that taxpayers would lose about $40 billion of the first $55 billion in aid.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...-auto-bailout/

for those of you who don't like fox, the story is from the AP:
http://money.aol.com/article/taxpaye...on-auto/632298

TheMercenary 09-28-2009 03:57 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen I bring you the Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. Congress...

Quote:
The Absent-Minded Chairman

When normal people happen to “find” their own money, it might mean a twenty left in a winter coat, or discovering change beneath the sofa cushions. But if you’re Charlie Rangel, it means doubling your net worth.

Earlier this month the Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. Congress "amended" his 2007 financial disclosure form—to the tune of more than a half-million dollars in previously unreported assets and income. That number may be as high as $780,000, because Congress's ethics rules only require the Members to report their finances within broad ranges. This voyage of personal financial discovery brings Mr. Rangel's net worth for 2007 to somewhere between $1.028 million and $2.495 million, while his previous statement came in at $516,015 and $1.316 million.

When you're a powerful Congressman and working diligently to increase tax rates to pay for President Obama's health-care plan, we suppose it's easy to lose track of one of your checking accounts. That would be the one at the federal credit union with a balance somewhere between $250,001 and maybe as high as $500,000. And when you're crunched for time and pulling together bills to pass in a rush, we guess, too, that you might overlook several other investment accounts, even if some of them are sizable, such as the ones Mr. Rangel missed at JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer and BlackRock.

Oh, and those vacant properties in Glassboro, in southern Jersey? Everybody in Manhattan tries not to think much about New Jersey, so those lots and their as-much-as-$15,000 value must also have slipped down the memory hole. (The New York Post reported yesterday that Mr. Rangel failed to pay property taxes for two of the lots, according to the county clerk's office.)

The Chairman probably isn't doing a lot of dining at KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell or Long John Silver's, either, which may explain why he didn't disclose the $1,001 to $15,000 in stock he owns in Yum Brands, the conglomerate that runs those chain restaurants. Compared to his undisclosed portfolio stake in PepsiCo—$15,001 to $50,000—that's practically a rounding error.

All lawmakers amend their financial reports from time to time, though rarely are the errors this extensive. Via email, a Rangel spokesman declined to offer details about how the errors occurred, noting that "Once the Ethics Committee completes its work, then we can answer questions in more detail." He added that Mr. Rangel is now "confident that his records have been subjected to an exhaustive and complete review, and that the amendments accurately reflect his financial interests."

Among other issues, Mr. Rangel is currently under investigation regarding his use of four rent-stabilized apartments at New York City's tony Lenox Terrace and soliciting donations with his official letterhead for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, which was itself built with a $1.9 million earmark. Yet another part of the probe is his failure to report $75,000 in income from a rental villa at the beachfront Punta Cana Yacht Club, in the Dominican Republic.

Mr. Rangel blamed that last one on the language barrier because he doesn't speak Spanish. We can only imagine what language he speaks with his accountants and tax attorneys.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB4000...92072820.html#

classicman 09-28-2009 08:18 AM
Removal from office - immediately. (After the pony show of an investigation, of course)


It's the only way they are going to learn.

TheMercenary 09-30-2009 09:53 PM
What?!?!? no comment to support the criminal elements of the Demoncrats in Congress??? WtheFuck? over?

TheMercenary 10-07-2009 06:26 PM
Just for Reflex, another "gottcha moment" or just another double standard for the Demoncrats on the Hill?

Quote:
Democrats defeat GOP attempt to remove Rangel
By LARRY MARGASAK (AP) – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON — House Republicans failed Wednesday for a third time to oust Rep. Charles Rangel as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, but they kept the political spotlight on his ethical problems.

The House voted 246-153 along mostly partisan lines to refer a GOP resolution to remove Rangel to the House ethics committee. The Democratic maneuver rendered the Republican effort meaningless, since Democratic leaders have said they have no intention of removing Rangel while the ethics committee is conducting a long-term investigation of his conduct.

The ethics committee's investigation of Rangel's financial and fundraising activities has been under way for about a year, and that has provided Democrats political cover to avoid taking action.

"We ought to allow that work to continue and to be completed and receive their recommendation, and we will do that," Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday, when asked how Democrats would respond to the Republican effort.

It is unclear how long the ethics investigation will continue, but the closer it gets to the 2010 elections the bigger problem for Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to drain the swamp of unethical conduct that plagued Republicans several years ago — and helped cost the GOP control of the House in the 2006 elections.

Rangel, a New York Democrat, faces allegations of financial improprieties, including failure to pay taxes on investment income and neglecting to report assets and income on his congressional financial disclosure forms.

House GOP leadership spokesman Michael Steel said the attempt to remove Rangel "highlights the Democrats' broken promises" for an open and ethical Congress.

"Obviously, given that House Democratic leaders haven't chosen to do the right thing, an important part of our strategy is to make sure the American people know they're trying to sweep these matters under the rug," Steel said. "The American people will certainly remember the Democrats' broken promises on these issues."

The ethics committee is conducting investigations of six Democrats besides Rangel and one Republican. The committee also is reviewing the practice of lawmakers steering money and contracts to favored companies, and then receiving campaign contributions in return for the "earmarks."

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of a subcommittee that dispenses defense dollars, is the most prominent figure in that review, although members of both parties used the same fundraising practices.

A review determines whether an investigation will be initiated.

Conservative Republican talk radio hosts have been using Rangel's case to attack the conduct of Democrats and ridicule Pelosi's promises to clean house.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...AKF2wD9B6FKQ80

Redux 10-07-2009 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 599655)
Just for Reflex, another "gottcha moment" or just another double standard for the Demoncrats on the Hill?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...AKF2wD9B6FKQ80
As far as I know, in 200+ years, there is no precedent for the House to formally remove a committee chair unless he/she has been charged with a crime.

The ethics rules provide a process for dealing with any potential ethical violations by any member of the House.

The attempt to remove Rangel from the chairmanship is purely political theater on the part of the Republicans.

Should he step down voluntarily? I would recommend it, but that is for him to decide.

Where is the double standard?

Dont let the facts get in the way of your "gotcha!"

TheMercenary 10-07-2009 08:01 PM
Rangle is a criminal. He should be removed.

TheMercenary 10-07-2009 08:59 PM
Stossel hits the nail on the head...

Quote:
It's the Spending, Stupid
By John Stossel

"The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul," George Bernard Shaw once said.

For a socialist, Shaw demonstrated good sense with that quotation. Unfortunately, America has become a laboratory in which his hypothesis is being tested.

John Stossel RealClearPolitics
taxes economy

[b]The theory of government I was taught says that government provides benefits, primarily security, to the entire population. In return we pay taxes. But lately the government has been a distributor of special privileges, taking money from some and giving it to others. America is now about evenly split between those who pay income taxes and those who consume them.[//b]

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center recently disclosed that close to half of all households will pay no income tax this year. Some will pay less than zero -- that is, they'll get money from those of us who do pay taxes.

The Tax Policy Center adds that this year the average income-tax rate for the bottom 40 percent of earners will be negative and that their cash subsidy will equal 10 percent of the total amount the income tax brings in, thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit and President Obama's "Making Work Pay" program.

The view from the top also shows the lopsidedness of the tax system. The top 20 percent of earners makes about 53 percent of the income in America but pays 91 percent of the income tax. The top 1 percent pays 36 percent. The IRS says the bottom half of earners pays less than 3 percent.

This presents a serious problem because government has such vast powers to dispense favors. As Shaw suggested, people who pay no tax will not hesitate to vote for politicians who promise big spending. Why not? They will get stuff without having to pay for it.

Yes, working people who pay no income tax still pay taxes: sales tax and payroll (Social Security and Medicare) taxes. But the income tax is big and visible, so it's a problem that a growing number of people don't pay, but get benefits from those who do.

Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th-century French economist, defined the state as "that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." I don't know if he envisioned one half of the population living off the other half.

It's important not to confuse the interests of the taxpayers with the interests of the politicians and other tax consumers. Yet that is done all the time. When the government bought toxic assets (of zero market value) from the banks, it said taxpayers would profit when the economy recovered and the assets once again commanded a positive price in the market. Even if we make the dubious assumption that the government is savvy enough to buy low and sell high, it's not the taxpayers who would benefit from any profits. The politicians will spend every penny, rather than cutting taxes.

To put it bluntly, we are not the government.

The built-in unfairness of the tax system has prompted a range of tax-reform proposals, such as a flat tax and replacing the income tax with a sales tax. These alternatives are better, but they have their drawbacks, too. For that reason, there is something more urgent than tax reform: spending reform.

The true burden of government, the late Milton Friedman said, is not the tax level but the spending level. Taxation is just one way for the government to get money. The other ways -- borrowing and inflation -- are also burdens on the people. The best way to lighten the tax burden is to lessen the spending burden. If government spends less, it takes less. And if it takes less, the tax system will weigh less heavily on us all.

Once again, we find wisdom in Adam Smith: "Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ine_98601.html

Urbane Guerrilla 10-09-2009 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 599658)
Where is the double standard?
They are your team, Redux, and you love and root for them beyond all reason. You believe that because they are Democrats they inherently can do no wrong. This is magical thinking beyond all magical thinking. You can't see the double standard in play even when it is as plain as the dong in your crotch, to say nothing of the nose on your face and the zits on your nose.

And I call BS. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You haven't the standing to ask where the double standard is. Your party of choice does not accord with your actual intellectual powers, and you repeatedly, habitually, utter the silliest things in Team Rocket's, uh, Team Democrat's support. Your allegiance to the Dems keeps you from using your native intelligence, Redux -- and that's a shame.

Not being enmeshed with the Democrats allows me to think much more clearly.

Your team, sir, is an institutionalized monster of unfairness, as evinced by Rep. Grayson's (D-FL) recent remarks. Let one example stand for one thousand -- and none apologized for nor repented from, like good people would do and your boys don't. YOUR damfool boys have launched a frontal assault on one fifth of the world's economy and are bent on its destruction by socialist redistributionism, economic illiteracy, and buying one helluva cycle of inflation with their inventing budget dollars out of thin air.

The Democratic Party's actions shall prevent me from voting for any Democratic candidate for any office for the rest of my days -- on the grounds of institutional incompetence.

The facts, dear boy, are why there's a "gotcha." Charlie Rangel's "explanation" of the matter -- well, he's stupid enough to think Americans are going to buy it, or shouldn't see any problem with it. Arrogance meets thickheadedness, and thickheadedness is a disqualification for office. Team Democrat, "blasting off agaiiiiiinnnnn...."

Redux 10-09-2009 05:48 PM
UG...if I recall, it was the Republicans who controlled the House for 12 years from 95 through 06 and did absolutely nothing in the way of proposing tougher ethics rules for members.

And instead, created the greatest revolving door between Congress and lobbyists in recent history -- the K Street Project.
The K Street Project is an effort by the Republican Party (GOP) to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. It was launched in 1995 by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and then-House majority whip Tom DeLay.

Shortly after the 1994 elections which gave a majority of seats to Republican candidates, DeLay called prominent Washington lobbyists into his office. He had pulled the public records of political contributions that they made to Democrats and Republicans. According to Texans for Public Justice, "he reminded them that Republicans were in charge and their political giving had better reflect that—or else. The "or else" was a threat to cut off access to the Republican House leadership."
And, now, want to change the rules in the middle of the game because it provides great political theater. That, IMO, is the double standard in play.

I would like to see stronger ethics rules; I have said that repeatedly. The Democrats took a first crack at it in 07 when they took control, but it doesnt go far enough.

But until such time, you play by the current rules.

TheMercenary 10-09-2009 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 600164)
UG...if I recall, it was the Republicans who controlled the House for 12 years from 95 through 06 and did absolutely nothing in the way of proposing tougher ethics rules for members.
Oh well that is good to know, that makes all of Rangles criminal acts just ok. :rolleyes:

Redux 10-09-2009 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 600170)
Oh well that is good to know, that makes all of Rangles criminal acts just ok. :rolleyes:
No...I didnt say Rangel's acts (questionable reporting to IRS/ questionable campaign contributions) are OK.

Personally, I dont think they rise to the level of criminality under the law, but I said that I would recommend that he step down voluntarily until the ethics process plays out as currently dictated by the rules of the House.

And forcible removal from a committee chairmanship is not part of that process currently in place.

Again, its changing the rules in the middle of the game for political purposes.

TheMercenary 10-09-2009 06:20 PM
Makes good sense to me....

Quote:
"Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas the gentleman from New York, Charles B. Rangel, the fourth most senior Member of the House of Representatives, serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a position of considerable power and influence within the House of Representatives;

Whereas clause one of Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commission, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”;

Whereas The New York Times reported on September 5, 2008, that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel has earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988, but never reported it on his federal or state tax returns, according to a lawyer for the congressman and documents from the resort.”;

Whereas in an article in the September 5, 2008 edition of The New York Times, his attorney confirmed that Representative Rangel’s annual congressional Financial Disclosure statements failed to disclose the rental income from his resort villa;

Whereas The New York Times reported on September 6, 2008 that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage extended to him to buy a villa at a beachfront resort in the Dominican Republic, according to Mr. Rangel’s lawyer and records from the resort. The loan, which was extended to Mr. Rangel in 1988, was originally to be paid back over seven years at a rate of 10.5 percent. But within two years, interest on the loan was waived for Mr. Rangel.”;

Whereas clause 5(a)(2)(A) of House Rule 25 defines a gift as, “…a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value” and prohibits the acceptance of such gifts except in limited circumstances;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s acceptance of thousands of dollars in interest forgiveness is a violation of the House gift ban;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s failure to disclose the aforementioned gifts and income on his Personal Financial Disclosure Statements violates House rules and federal law;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s failure to report the aforementioned gifts and income on federal, state and local tax returns is a violation of the tax laws of those jurisdictions;

Whereas the Committee on Ways and Means, which Representative Rangel chairs, has jurisdiction over the United States Tax Code;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct first announced on July 31, 2008 that it was reviewing allegations of misconduct by Representative Rangel;

Whereas Roll Call newspaper reported on September 15, 2008 that, “The inconsistent reports are among myriad errors, discrepancies and unexplained entries on Rangel’s personal disclosure forms over the past eight years that make it almost impossible to get a clear picture of the Ways and Means chairman’s financial dealings.”;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on September 24, 2008 that it had established an investigative subcommittee in the matter of Representative Rangel;

Whereas after the Ethics Committee probe was underway, The New York Times reported on November 24, 2008 that, “Congressional records and interviews show that Mr. Rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited Nabors Industries an oil drilling company last year, while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.”;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on December 9, 2008 that it had expanded the jurisdiction of the aforementioned investigative subcommittee to examine the allegations related to Representative Rangel’s involvement with Nabors Industries;

Whereas since then, further serious allegations of improper and potentially illegal conduct by Representative Rangel have surfaced;

Whereas during the recently completed August district work period, Representative Rangel acknowledged his failure to publicly disclose at least half a million dollars in cash assets, tens of thousands of dollars in investment income, and his ownership of two pieces of property in New Jersey;

Whereas corrected financial disclosure statements filed by Representative Rangel on August 12, 2009 now reveal his net worth to be nearly twice as much as he had previously revealed;

Whereas The New York Times newspaper reported on August 26, 2009 that, “United States Representative Charles B. Rangel, whose personal finances and fund raising are the subject of two House ethics investigations, failed to report at least $500,000 in assets on his 2007 Congressional disclosure form, according to an amended report he filed this month. Among the dozen newly disclosed holdings revealed in the amended forms are a checking account at a federal credit union with a balance between $250,000 and $500,000; three vacant lots in Glassboro, N.J., valued at a total of $1,000 to $15,000; and stock in PepsiCo worth between $15,000 and $50,000.”;

Whereas Roll Call newspaper reported on August 25, 2009 that Representative Rangel’s corrected filings also revealed “at least $250,001 in a fund called ML Allianz Global Investors Consults Diversified Port III.”;

Whereas the aforementioned Roll Call story reported that “Rangel also originally misreported that his investments in 2007 netted him $6,511-$17,950 in dividends, capital gains and rental income. In his revised filing, that range jumped to between $29,220 and $81,200.”;

Whereas these most recent revelations by Representative Rangel have resulted in heightened national news media coverage of alleged impropriety and potentially criminal conduct by one of the most senior Members of the House;

Whereas an editorial in The Washington Times newspaper on September 1, 2009 noted, “Charlie Rangel is one lucky guy. The Democratic congressman from Harlem, N.Y., just discovered that his net wealth is twice what he thought. That’s a pretty good day at the office for a public servant. Mr. Rangel also realized that he made tens of thousands of dollars more than he reported in many different years over the past decade. This is the most recent string in a series of financial bonanzas for Mr. Rangel, who last year admitted he had forgotten about $75,000 in rental income on his Caribbean resort property.”;

Whereas the same editorial also noted, “The congressman has failed to pay property taxes on two lots in New Jersey, according to the New York Post. That’s not all. In order to avoid taxes and get lower mortgage rates, Mr. Rangel simultaneously claimed three ‘primary residences’.”;

Whereas an editorial in the September 17, 2009 edition of the New Haven Register stated, “The ethics and tax complaints keep piling up against U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, who as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee controls writing of the nation’s tax laws. The New York Democrat may write those laws, but he apparently feels no obligation to obey them. The investigation appears to have a long way to go. The man who is in charge of writing the nation’s tax laws doesn’t pay his federal income or local property taxes. He has such a poor grasp of his own finances that he neglects to list half his assets on a disclosure form intended to keep members of Congress accountable and honest. We can already hear the defense of the next tax deadbeat called into court. If Charlie Rangel doesn’t have to pay his taxes, why should I?”;

TheMercenary 10-09-2009 06:21 PM
Quote:
Whereas, an article in The Washington Post on September 15, 2009 stated, “Rangel is now the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a man of immense importance in Washington. Nonetheless, he has been busy of late revising and amending the record, backing and filling, using buckets of Wite-Out as he discovers or remembers properties he has owned in New York, New Jersey, Florida, the Dominican Republic and God only knows where else. Rangel recently even discovered bank accounts that no one in the world, apparently including him, knew he had. One was with the Congressional Federal Credit Union; another was with Merrill Lynch – each valued between $250,000 and $500,000. He somehow neglected to mention these accounts on his congressional disclosure forms, which means, if you can believe it, that when he signed the forms, he did not notice that maybe $1 million was missing. Someone ought to check the lighting in his office.”;

Whereas the same article in The Washington Post stated, “There is something wrong with Charlie Rangel. Either he did not notice that he was worth about twice as much as he said he was – which is downright worrisome in a congressional leader – or he thinks he’s above the law, which is downright worrisome in a congressional leader.”;

Whereas it has been more than one year since an editorial in The New York Times on September 15, 2008 stated, “Mounting embarrassment for taxpayers and Congress makes it imperative that Representative Charles Rangel step aside as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while his ethical problems are investigated.”;

Whereas at various times during the past twelve months Representative Rangel and Speaker Pelosi have made public statements asserting that the ongoing investigation of Representative Rangel by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct would soon be concluded;

Whereas the Committee has to date issued no public statements concerning any expected timeline for conducting or concluding its investigation of Representative Rangel;

Whereas major daily newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post , and The New York Post have called for Representative Rangel’s removal from his powerful position at least until the House Ethics Committee has completed its ongoing probes of allegations against him;

Whereas, Representative Rangel’s powerful position as chairman permits him to participate in high level decisions about critically important issues such as reform of the nation’s health care system;

Whereas an October 1, 2009 story in The New York Times stated, “Mr. Rangel is one of a small group of House leaders now meeting almost daily behind closed doors with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to distill from the three bills produced in separate committees the one package that will go to the House floor.;

Whereas an Associated Press story on September 20, 2009 stated, “The ethics committee’s investigation of Rangel is almost a year old. It’s as much a problem for House Democratic leaders as for Rangel himself. Later this year, when Rangel’s committee considers estate tax legislation that could expand into other matters, the headlines will be a version of this message: ‘Tax scofflaw presiding over tax changes.’”;

Whereas the New York Post newspaper reported on September 2, 2009 that, “A review of property records for the borough of Glassboro revealed at least six tax liens levied against Rangel’s property during the past 16 years. Just last year, two separate liens were levied against both properties owned by Rangel.”;

Whereas on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited “high ethical standards” in a letter to former Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson;

Whereas Speaker Pelosi took the aforementioned action while Representative Jefferson was under investigation and the subject of considerable controversy in the news media, but prior to any indictment Whereas on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited “high ethical standards” in a letter to former Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson;

Whereas in April of 2007, Republican Leader John Boehner successfully urged several Republican Members to relinquish their committee assignments after learning that each had become the subject of investigations into possible criminal activity; Whereas Leader Boehner took the aforementioned actions while the Members in question were under investigation and the subjects of widespread media controversy, but prior to any indictments;

Whereas in the wake of the most recent allegations against Representative Rangel various editorials and articles in major national newspapers criticizing Speaker Pelosi’s continued refusal to remove Representative Rangel as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means after promising she would preside over “the most ethical Congress in history” have held the House up to public ridicule; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution and pending completion of the investigation into his affairs by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Representative Rangel is hereby removed as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means."

Redux 10-09-2009 06:26 PM
Please point to the section of the House rules that provides for members of Congress introducing resolutions to forcibly remove another member from the chairmanship of a committee.

It doesnt.....simple as that.

The process is clear and it works through the Ethics Committees, in part, to avoid purely partisan reactions/responses like the above.

Redux 10-09-2009 06:33 PM
Yesterday, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct voted unanimously to expand the jurisdiction of the committee's investigation of Rangel.

http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/Ra...Oct_8_2009.PDF

IMO, that is how the process should work...and in the meantime, there is nothing in the current rules/standards that allow for removal from a chairmanship during that process.

What is so wrong about following the rules?

TheMercenary 10-09-2009 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 600181)
Yesterday, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct voted unanimously to expand the jurisdiction of the committee's investigation of Rangel.

http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/Ra...Oct_8_2009.PDF

IMO, that is how the process should work...and in the meantime, there is nothing in the current rules/standards that allow for removal from a chairmanship during that process.

What is so wrong about following the rules?
Oh nothing at all. Funny that it took others to twist their arms, make a big public display, leak information to the press, draft resolutions, all but jump up and down and hold their breath to get the Demoncrats to deal with this criminal who is Chairman of the very committee, of the House Ways and Means Committee, which deals with tax issues. The Double Standards continue to abound. And more than 2 years ago that scumbag Pelosi promised change... pfffft.

Urbane Guerrilla 10-18-2009 12:25 AM
Meanwhile... Comix!

The overall fight will grow increasingly bitter, I fear.

I think we conservatives will win, but there will be bleeding, and that saddens me. Still, I'd be sadder under socialism, regardless of the fair words it might get in under.

Redux 10-19-2009 05:54 PM
This one is for you, UG!

Republicans in Congress....There's a rep for that:


http://wakingupnow.com/blog/rep4that
Need a rep to play the bogus socialist card in your political forum? UG is our rep for that!

TheMercenary 10-21-2009 04:55 AM
What a bunch of clowns...

Quote:
Democrats lock Republicans out of committee room

By Susan Crabtree - 10/20/09 05:47 PM ET

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) locked Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room to keep them from meeting when Democrats aren’t present.

Towns’ action came after repeated public ridicule from the leading Republican on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), over Towns’s failure to launch an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage’s reported sweetheart deals to VIPs.

For months Towns has refused Republican requests to subpoena records in the case. Last Thursday Committee Republicans, led by Issa, were poised to force an open vote on the subpoenas at a Committee mark-up meeting. The mark-up was abruptly canceled. Only Republicans showed up while Democrats chairs remained empty.

Republicans charged that Towns cancelled the meeting to avoid the subpoena vote. Democrats first claimed the mark-up was canceled due to a conflict with the Financial Services Committee. Later they said it was abandoned after a disagreement among Democratic members on whether to subpoena records on the mortgage industry’s political contributions to Republicans.

A GOP committee staffer captured video of Democrats leaving their separate meeting in private chambers after the mark-up was supposed to have begun. He spliced the video to other footage of the Democrats’ empty chairs at the hearing room, set it to the tune of “Hit the Road, Jack” and posted it on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s minority webpage, where it remained as of press time.

Towns’s staffers told Republicans they were not happy about the presence of the video camera in the hearing room when they were not present. Issa’s spokesman said the Democrats readily acknowledged to Republicans that they changed the locks in retaliation to the videotape of the Democrats’ absence from the business meeting even though committee rules allow meetings to be taped.
more:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63...committee-room

classicman 10-21-2009 01:05 PM
Quote:
Democrats readily acknowledged to Republicans that they changed the locks in retaliation to the videotape of the Democrats’ absence from the business meeting even though committee rules allow meetings to be taped.
And all of this childish stuff goes on while we are footing the bill. . . great.

Redux 10-21-2009 02:46 PM
Agreed....changing the locks is childish.

But, IMO, not nearly as serious as political grandstanding that could impede the ongoing DoJ/FBI investigation of Countrywide.

The Republicans know full well that they were asked by DoJ not to issue subpoenas while the FBI investigation is in progress.... a standard practice....dont interfere with criminal investigations.

It was pure political theater on the Republican side...so they can go before the friendly media and announce that the Democrats blocked subpoenas of that big bad lending institution.

Context matters.

Quote:
Towns’ action came after repeated public ridicule from the leading Republican on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), over Towns’s failure to launch an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage’s reported sweetheart deals to VIPs.

For months Towns has refused Republican requests to subpoena records in the case. Last Thursday Committee Republicans, led by Issa, were poised to force an open vote on the subpoenas at a Committee mark-up meeting.

classicman 10-21-2009 03:44 PM
and your post is impeccable fingerpointing.

classicman 10-21-2009 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 602455)
It was pure political theater on the Republican side...so they can go before the friendly media and announce that the Democrats blocked subpoenas of that big bad lending institution.
Since when has the media been friendly to the R's anyway???

Redux 10-21-2009 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 602470)
Since when has the media been friendly to the R's anyway???
Ever heard of Fox News...where these guys line up to get on the air to spread misinformation?


From several weeks ago:
Quote:
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) angrily took Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) to task today for failing to launch an investigation in the Countrywide Financial Corp.’s VIP program and questionable lending practices....


Towns responded by reiterating his belief that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an investigation into Countrywide’s activities, a reason he previously gave Issa and reporters for failing to launch a committee probe. Towns said the committee did not want to impede the Justice probe in any way so would not pursue its own investigation.

“The Justice Department, I understand, is seriously looking into it,” Towns said during the hearing.

There is no way to know how extensive or limited the DOJ investigation is, or whether it exists because the DOJ does not usually acknowledge investigations until it issues indictments or formal charges. Issa pointed out the fact that Bank of America and Countrywide executives have acknowledged that they have not received any subpoenas for information, but would provide answers to specific questions about the VIP program and other matters, if subpoenaed.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ng-countrywide
Let the DoJ do its job. There is a time and place for Congressional oversight and it is not while a criminal investigation may be pending or in process.

It makes you wonder if the Republicans are more interested in embarrasing the Democrats than bringing top Countrywide officials to justice (assuming the company and/or its officials acted illegally).

I would love to have seen Bernie Madoff subpoenaed by a Congressional Committee and compelled to testify under oath on c-span for the entire country to view....but both parties saw the downside of that and justice prevailed w/o political interference.

dar512 10-21-2009 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 602470)
Since when has the media been friendly to the R's anyway???
How long has Fox been in business?

classicman 10-21-2009 10:22 PM
Didn't realize he meant that one outlet. Misinterpreted it as the media in general.
No big deal - down boys.

TheMercenary 10-22-2009 04:05 AM
No shit, ya think?
Quote:
Towns Walks on Thin Caucus Ice
By Tory Newmyer and Jackie Kucinich
Roll Call Staff
Oct. 22, 2009, 12 a.m.
Government Reform Chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) is facing heat from up and down the Democratic ladder after locking Republicans out of his committee room this week in an ongoing spat over a mortgage lending controversy.

Towns’ move set off alarms in House Democratic leadership, with top staffers voicing growing concern Wednesday that the Oversight chairman is losing control of his panel amid a showdown with ranking member Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). It was unclear Wednesday evening whether leaders would intervene, but aides made clear they were now monitoring the situation.

“It will be on the agenda going forward,” one senior Democratic aide said.

And while committee Democrats blasted what they called partisan cheap shots from their Republican counterparts, some also decried their own panel leadership for allowing the dispute to distract from other work.

“There seem to be a lot of theatrics, and I wish we would get beyond the theatrics and get some real work done for the American people,” said Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), an Oversight member.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_45/news/39788-1.html

TheMercenary 10-22-2009 04:09 AM
.

TheMercenary 10-29-2009 11:14 PM
More trouble for Demoncrats and ethic probes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,1633862.story

TheMercenary 10-30-2009 05:29 AM
Power Hungry Demoncrats flex their muscles:

Quote:
House Democrats blocked the public from attending the unveiling ceremony of their health care bill Thursday morning, allowing only pre-approved visitors whose names appeared on lists to enter the event at the West Front of the Capitol.

The audience at the crowded press conference included Hill staffers, union workers, health care providers and students, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who thanked them for attending.

Mrs. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders announced the chamber's long-awaited version of a health care overhaul, which would expand insurance coverage to 36 million uninsured Americans, costing less than $900 billion over 10 years.

The West Front of the Capitol -- where President Obama was inaugurated -- is traditionally open to the public. But the entrances were blocked off Thursday morning by metal fences, with Capitol Police officers standing next to staff members holding clipboards with lists of approved attendees.

"The steps of the Capitol are and should be open to the public," Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, said on the House floor Thursday night. But House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, denied the charge.

"I was there. I saw nobody turned away. I saw nobody precluded from attending," he told Mr. Cantor.

Videos posted on YouTube, including by Mr. Cantor's office, showed people being turned away by staffers or police. In the video from Mr. Cantor's office, a police officer tells a Republican staffer they are being denied access "per the speaker's staff."
Quote:
By Thursday evening Republicans were using the closed-to-the-public event as a fundraising tool.

"Pelosi and her liberal allies want us to know as little about this legislation as possible, because it cannot stand up to public scrutiny. Why else would Pelosi forbid the public from attending the event?" the National Republican Congressional Committee said in its plea for contributions.

A 2008 Congressional Research Service report says using the Capitol's West Front usually requires a joint resolution of Congress, though in some cases a simple police permit will suffice.

"Events that entail the use of the West Front Steps of the Capitol, electricity on the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol, require more than 24 hours from setup to cleanup, require vehicles on Capitol Grounds for setup, or will have a large number of Members in attendance typically require a concurrent resolution," the report said.

Congress did not pass such a resolution. Asked about whether a special permit was issued, a Capitol Police spokeswoman referred calls to the House Sergeant at Arms Office, which didn't return calls seeking comment. Mrs. Pelosi's spokesman also didn't return messages asking about the authorization to close down the space.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...closed-public/

classicman 10-30-2009 08:46 AM
Quote:
"Pelosi and her liberal allies want us to know as little about this legislation as possible, because it cannot stand up to public scrutiny. Why else would Pelosi forbid the public from attending the event?" the National Republican Congressional Committee said in its plea for contributions.
I call Bullshit. This information on this legislation is every-fuckin-where. They are more than happy to tell everyone what is in it.

TheMercenary 10-30-2009 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 604495)
I call Bullshit. This information on this legislation is every-fuckin-where. They are more than happy to tell everyone what is in it.
Sure they are. It has never been about what they are telling us. It is what we are not being told.

Redux 10-30-2009 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 604584)
Sure they are. It has never been about what they are telling us. It is what we are not being told.
I thought it was about not being transparent or not making the bill available for all to read prior to the floor debate and vote.....Ahhhh....different bitching and moaning. :rolleyes:

Anyone can read the full bill, a two-page summary, a ten-page summary, 20 different fact sheets on the components of the bill and more.

http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/1...lth-care.shtml

But it won't tell some what they want to here....for that, there are the ideological ops ed from the other side. The ones that describe it as socialism, government take over of health care, screwing grandma.

Or as the Republican leader in the Senate said today, "...the public option may cost you your life." :eek:

TheMercenary 10-30-2009 05:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 604630)
I thought it was about not being transparent or not making the bill available for all to read prior to the floor debate and vote.....Ahhhh....different bitching and moaning.
Correct the bill was completely formed behind closed doors with no bi-partisan input. The ideas formed by committtee with no in put from anyone other than Demoncrats.

Quote:
Anyone can read the full bill, a two-page summary, a ten-page summary, 20 different fact sheets on the components of the bill and more.
Of course you can read the Demoncratic Healthcare Bill. Rahm it down the throats of the people. Fact sheets out by the White House and the Dems. Partisan.

Quote:
But it won't tell some what they want to here....for that, there are the ideological ops ed from the other side. The ones that describe it as socialism, government take over of health care, screwing grandma.
The facts are painful.

Quote:
Or as the Republican leader in the Senate said today, [i]"...the public option may cost you your life."
I could only hope.

TheMercenary 10-30-2009 05:59 PM
Hey Redux. How about all those jobs the White House claims they made. To bad they can't show anyone how they got their numbers and most experts agree it is more smoke and mirrors bullshit from Rahm. :lol:

Redux 10-30-2009 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 604632)
Correct the bill was completely formed behind closed doors with no bi-partisan input. The ideas formed by committtee with no in put from anyone other than Demoncrats.
In fact, the underlying bill (the one adopted in July) that the final bill mirrors in most respects, accepted 14-15 Republican amendments and rejected 25-30 amendments.

That's called majority rules.

Redux 10-30-2009 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 604633)
Hey Redux. How about all those jobs the White House claims they made. To bad they can't show anyone how they got their numbers and most experts agree it is more smoke and mirrors bullshit from Rahm. :lol:
The 640,000+ jobs created or saved announced today is from data provided by the states, both red and blue states. BTW, these are separate from the 30,000 private contract jobs announced earlier (where the ap claimed a 10% over-statement).

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

Even if they are off by 10%, the numbers dont lie that much.

And its been fun to watch Republican governors (and members of Congress) hold those checks up at public local events and proudly declare they are savng jobs....then go back to their office and bitch about the program.

Given that much of the ARRA money has yet to be spent, creating or saving more than 1-2 million jobs over the 18th month period envisioned in the bill seems about right to me. The talk of 3+ million ...probably not.

Redux 10-30-2009 07:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 604632)
Fact sheets out by the White House and the Dems. Partisan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 604646)
But it won't tell some what they want to here....for that, there are the ideological ops ed from the other side. The ones that describe it as socialism, government take over of health care, screwing grandma....
The facts are painful.
I get it now.

Facts sheets from the White House and Democrats are partisan opinions......and partisan opinions from those opposed to the bill are facts.

:lol2:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 604632)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 604646)
Or as the Republican leader in the Senate said today, "...the public option may cost you your life."
I could only hope.
You hope this bill may cost people their lives?

How sad or mean-spirited is that. :meanface:

spudcon 10-30-2009 08:57 PM
Why fact sheets? Why not the 2000 sheet bill they're voting on?

Redux 10-30-2009 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spudcon (Post 604667)
Why fact sheets? Why not the 2000 sheet bill they're voting on?
Hey...I admit that Boehner waving the 1900+ bill makes great political theater!
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20091029/ca...ul_dchh115.jpg
When the version is double-spaced, with oversized fonts and only printed across half the page!

Members get a detailed section-by-section summary w/o all the legal references to existing US Code....as well as detailed briefings by the majority (or minority) staff.

And, in addition to the fact sheets, the public has access to easy-to-read four or ten page summaries which come right from the bill and are not opinion.

xoxoxoBruce 10-31-2009 03:35 AM
And those, "detailed briefings" and "easy-to-read four or ten page summaries", are created by non-partisan, no axe to grind, no agenda, never saw a lobbyist, Capitol Fairies. :rolleyes:

The summarized intent of a bill, is rarely the full consequences of a law that gets passed. Sure keeps the lawyers and courts busy, though.

Redux 10-31-2009 05:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 604696)
And those, "detailed briefings" and "easy-to-read four or ten page summaries", are created by non-partisan, no axe to grind, no agenda, never saw a lobbyist, Capitol Fairies. :rolleyes:

The summarized intent of a bill, is rarely the full consequences of a law that gets passed. Sure keeps the lawyers and courts busy, though.
There is also the non-partisan CRS summary and the non-partisan CBO cost analysis (granted, its only a "best" estimate). ;)

And of course, the health insurance companies love this bill so much, they are spending $millions in lobbying and public media campaigns against it.

There are winners and losers in every major piece of legislation and there is no such thing as a perfect bill...there are always trade-offs and there always have been.

IMO, the big winners are:
the 30-40 million currently uninsured, most of whom are hard working, productive citizens who just happened to work for small businesses that dont provide insurance and who personally cannot afford insurance on the current open market.

the 200+ million who are now covered by employer-based plans who wont see their contributions continue to increase at a rate more than double their salary every year, whose out-of-pocket annual expenses will now be capped so that no one faces bankruptcy as a result of an unforeseen medical crisis, who wont have to make co-pays for basic preventive care, and whose insurance will now be more portable if/when they change jobs.

and those with pre-exisiting conditions who will no longer be denied coverage at affordable rates.
There are no guarantees in life and even fewer in federal legislation.

You go with your best shot and proceed towards achieving the goals set in the legislation...and if necessary, once implemented, make corrections along the way.

The Republicans had their shot for eight years and chose to do nothing.

Or we could just continue to let the problem fester.

Shawnee123 10-31-2009 08:24 AM
Redux, dude, that ain't no Boehner.

There's no cigarette or Old-fashioned sitting next to him.

He's my congressman, my district. I waited on him as the wanna-be's in town courted him at the Country Club (years ago!)

My older brother works in such a position that he has a lot of time at the state house, and became fairly buddies with the Boehner.

My brother and I decline to discuss politics. ;)

Redux 10-31-2009 09:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 604709)
....He's my congressman, my district. I waited on him as the wanna-be's in town courted him at the Country Club (years ago!)
Four degrees of separation!

Shawnee --> waitress at Boehner country club
Boehner --> opposing party leader to Pelosi
Pelosi --> daughter of former Baltimore mayor Tommy D'Alesadro
Redux --> lifeguard at D'Alesandro country club (years ago!)

Shawnee123 10-31-2009 09:18 AM
:notworthy

Wonderful! :)

Oh, but I was a bartender. ;)

xoxoxoBruce 10-31-2009 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 604702)
And of course, the health insurance companies love this bill so much, they are spending $millions in lobbying and public media campaigns against it.
Of course they are, this would cut into the obscene profits they're reaping.
Quote:
There are winners and losers in every major piece of legislation and there is no such thing as a perfect bill...there are always trade-offs and there always have been.
True, but I think it's the elected rep's job to find out, as honestly as possible, just what they are before voting them into law.
Communicating them to his/her constituants would be nice, but that's probably a bit polyanna. :blush:
Quote:
Or we could just continue to let the problem fester.
Just for tonight, (Halloween), then uncle fester goes back in the ground.

TheMercenary 10-31-2009 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 604670)
Hey...I admit that Boehner waving the 1900+ bill makes great political theater!
That bitch Pelosi is Queen of that game! :lol2:

classicman 10-31-2009 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 604702)
There are winners and losers in every major piece of legislation and there is no such thing as a perfect bill...there are always trade-offs and there always have been.
I'm curious who you think the losers are.

Redux 11-01-2009 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 604810)
I'm curious who you think the losers are.
The biggest losers:
the private insurance companies providing Medicare Advantage coverage that have ripping off Medicare for years. Payments to those companies above the standard Medicare fee-for-service rate will be phased out.....an estimated $10-15 billion/year...and those seniors currently with MA will get the same services through standard Medicare.

the top 1/2 of one percent of wage earners in the country. Those with income above $500K (single) and $1 million (couple) will be hit with a 5.4% income tax surcharge.
Employers with payrolls over $750K (those not currently offering employer-based plans) might say they are losers since they will have to either offer basic minimum coverage to employees (paying approx 3/4 of the cost, but receiving tax credits in return) or pay into the Insurance Exchange. This is the primary reason that the Chamber of Commerce is spending $millions opposing the bill.

And of course, the private insurance companies that have denied coverage, dropped beneficiaries for no reason, practiced rated discrimination and operated in a non-competitive environment (in many states) for years. They can become winners by choosing to participate in the Insurance Exchange and have access to millions of new customers if they offer a range of competitive, affordable coverage options.

Thats just my opinion and we know what "real" Americans think of my opinion. :D

classicman 11-01-2009 12:06 PM
So apparently you think this is a slam-dunk great deal. Interesting. I haven't really heard that position from anyone else, including those who support it. Everyone seems to think this is some type of compromise or a great first step.

shrug.

Radar 11-01-2009 12:21 PM
I was happily surprised to find out that my congressional rep is none other than Alan Grayson of the "The Republican Health Care Plan: Don't Get Sick! And if you do get sick, die quickly!" fame.

I know the Republicans are pissed and want to go after him. I think I'll volunteer to help him get re-elected.

It's nice to have people in Congress who aren't lying and don't pull any punches.

Redux 11-01-2009 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 604938)
So apparently you think this is a slam-dunk great deal. Interesting. I haven't really heard that position from anyone else, including those who support it. Everyone seems to think this is some type of compromise or a great first step.

shrug.
Where did I say it was a great deal?

I said there are always winners and losers and I identfied who I thought those winners and losers are.

And I said there are always trade-offs (compromises).

I am a political pragmatist. You take what you realistically can expect to get...a half (or in this case, three quarters) of a loaf is better than none.

added:
IMO, a better bill would have had a much stronger public option. I also dont think it is great that some Americans (far fewer than ever) will still slip through the cracks, but the will to add the cost of that (at taxpayer expense) was not there. I would have supported generating more revenue to pay for it by lowering the threshold for the income tax surcharge from $500k/$1 million to $250k/$500K (or 300/600).

Those were some of the trade-offs (compromises) that were made to make passage of the bill possible.

But none of the above are reasons for me NOT to support this bill.

Even with those trade-offs, there are some great provisions that potentially benefit all of us, most notably, the elimination of excluding coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, prohibiting rate discrimination (mostly to the benefit of women) and capping annual out-of-pocket expenses so that no one faces bankruptcy as a result of a long-term illness or medical crisis....and for those millions of hard-working Americans currently w/o employer-based coverage, the plan will offer a range of coverage options that will be much more affordable than presently available.

classicman 11-01-2009 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 604702)
IMO, the big winners are:
the 30-40 million currently uninsured,

the 200+ million who are now covered by employer-based plans who wont see their contributions continue to increase at a rate more than double their salary every year,

and those with pre-exisiting conditions who will no longer be denied coverage at affordable rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 604874)
The biggest losers:
the private insurance companies

the top 1/2 of one percent of wage earners in the country.
Employers with payrolls over $750K (those not currently offering employer-based plans)

And of course, the private insurance companies

Based upon that. Perhaps I'm reading between the lines a bit, but your opinion appears pretty clear.

TheMercenary 11-08-2009 09:24 AM
Who would have thunk it?

Report: 237 millionaires in Congress

Quote:
Talk about bad timing.


As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment, the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.


Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.


CRP says California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa is the richest lawmaker on Capitol Hill, with a net worth estimated at about $251 million. Next in line: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), worth about $244.7 million; Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), worth about $214.5 million; Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), worth about $209.7 million; and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), worth about $208.8 million.


All told, at least seven lawmakers have net worths greater than $100 million, according to the Center’s 2008 figures.


“Many Americans probably have a sense that members of Congress aren’t hurting, even if their government salary alone is in the six figures, much more than most Americans make,” said CRP spokesman Dave Levinthal. “What we see through these figures is that many of them have riches well beyond that salary, supplemented with securities, stock holdings, property and other investments.”


The CRP numbers are somewhat rough estimates – lawmakers are required to report their financial information in broad ranges of figures, so it’s impossible to pin down their dollars with precision. The CRP uses the mid-point in the ranges to build its estimates.


Senators’ estimated median reportable worth sunk to about $1.79 million from $2.27 million in 2007. The House’s median income was significantly lower and also sank, bottoming out at $622,254 from $724,258 in 2007.


But CRP’s analysis suggests that some lawmakers did well for themselves between 2007 and 2008, even as many Americans lost jobs and saw their savings and their home values plummet.


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gained about $9.2 million. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) gained about $3 million, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) had an estimated $2.6 million gain, and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gained about $2.8 million.


Some lawmakers have profited from investments in companies that have received federal bailouts; dozens of lawmakers are invested in Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.


Among executive branch officials, CRP says the richest is Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary L. Schapiro, with a net worth estimated at $26 million.


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is next, worth an estimated $21 million. President Barack Obama is the sixth-wealthiest, worth about an estimated $4 million. Vice President Joe Biden has often tagged himself as an original blue collar man. The CRP backs him up, putting his net worth at just $27,000.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29235.html


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.
Page 3 of 14 12 3 4567891013 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.